G.R. No. 242901 , September 14, 2020
MA. LUISA R. LOREÑO, PETITIONER, V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Ma. Luisa R. Loreño, a Teacher I at Andres Bonifacio Integrated School, was administratively charged. A Commission on Audit (COA) audit for 2006-2008 revealed a cash shortage in the school’s accounts. A subsequent detailed audit found a specific shortage of P171,240.01 attributable to Loreño’s collections from student fees. COA issued demand letters, but she failed to produce the missing funds. The Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against her for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
In her defense, Loreño denied being an accountable officer. She claimed her role in counting money for school IDs was merely an unofficial favor for the principal and that she never had official custody or disbursement responsibilities. She challenged the audit procedure and argued the shortage was not substantiated. The Ombudsman found her guilty, imposing dismissal with accessory penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, holding she was an accountable officer as the Acting Collecting Officer.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether Loreño was an accountable officer under the law and whether she was correctly found guilty of the administrative charges.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the findings of guilt. On the first issue, the Court ruled Loreño was indeed an accountable officer. Her designation as Acting Collecting Officer, tasked with receiving and safeguarding school collections, placed her within the scope of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (the Government Auditing Code). This legal designation was corroborated by the fact she was covered by a fidelity bond, a requirement specifically for accountable officers. Her duties were not merely clerical; they involved direct custody of government funds.
Regarding the administrative charges, the Court upheld the findings of Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. Loreño’s failure to deposit the collections and to account for the shortage constituted dishonesty. Her violation of established rules on the handling and custody of public funds, coupled with her inability to produce the missing amount despite demand, constituted gross neglect and misconduct prejudicial to the service. The shortage itself, unrebutted by Loreño with clear evidence, was considered prima facie evidence that she had put the funds to personal use. The penalty of dismissal was affirmed as commensurate to the gravity of the offenses, which involved a breach of public trust.