GR 238643; (September, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238643, September 08, 2020
MARIA TERESA B. SALIGUMBA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT XIII, REPRESENTED BY CHERYL CANTALEJO-DIME AND TEODORA J. BENIGA, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The Commission on Audit (COA) filed an administrative complaint for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct against petitioner Maria Teresa B. Saligumba, Assistant Municipal Treasurer of Barobo, Surigao del Sur. A cash examination revealed a shortage of P223,050.93 in her accountability for the period December 2012 to June 2013. Saligumba admitted the shortage but explained it resulted from obeying the then Municipal Mayor’s order to issue official receipts to delinquent market vendors without actual cash payment, to facilitate their permit renewals. She claimed the vendors promised installment payments but reneged, and she subsequently fully restituted the amount.
The Office of the Ombudsman found Saligumba guilty of Gross Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty and imposed the penalty of dismissal with its accessory penalties. The Ombudsman rejected her defense as self-serving and unsupported by credible evidence, emphasizing her failure to satisfactorily account for the missing public funds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision. Saligumba elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Ombudsman’s finding of administrative liability for Gross Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty and the penalty of dismissal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decision. The Court emphasized that factual findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA, are conclusive. The Ombudsman’s finding that Saligumba failed to account for the cash shortage was upheld. Her defense of merely following a superior’s order and the subsequent restitution were unavailing.
The legal logic is clear: the elements of the offenses were established. Dishonesty was manifested through her falsification of official receipts and reports, making it appear cash was collected when it was not. Gross Misconduct was evident from her willful violation of established rules governing the custody and handling of public funds. The act was corrupt, intentional, and constituted a flagrant disregard of her duty as a cashier. Restitution does not extinguish administrative liability; it is merely a mitigating circumstance. Both Gross Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty are grave offenses under civil service rules, warranting the penalty of dismissal from service even for a first-time offender, as they reflect a character flaw rendering the employee unfit for public trust. The penalty imposed was therefore correct and in accordance with law.