G.R. No. 248819 , January 13, 2021
Grace Crisilda A. Pantaleon, Petitioner, vs. Ombudsman-Mindanao, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Grace Crisilda A. Pantaleon previously served as Revenue Clerk II of the Municipal Government of Barobo, Surigao del Sur. On October 8, 2015, State Auditors from the Commission on Audit (COA) filed a Joint Affidavit Complaint against her before the Deputy Ombudsman for criminal and administrative charges. An audit conducted on June 23, 2013, covering the period from December 18, 2012, to June 26, 2013, revealed a cash shortage in the aggregate amount of P436,748.45. Petitioner restituted the full amount on September 6, 2013, before any demand letter was issued. In her Counter-Affidavit, petitioner admitted the cash shortage but denied converting the money for personal use, claiming she lent it to co-workers with financial problems. The Ombudsman found her guilty of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with its accessory penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether there exists substantial evidence to hold petitioner administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the factual findings of the Ombudsman, affirmed by the CA and supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. Petitioner, as a Municipal Revenue Clerk and an accountable officer, had a sworn duty to safeguard public funds. By her own admission, she improperly and without legal authority lent the municipal funds to her co-workers. This act constituted Grave Misconduct, as it showed a clear intent to violate the law and a flagrant disregard of established rules. It also constituted Serious Dishonesty, as the dishonest act directly involved money for which she was directly accountable, exhibiting untrustworthiness and lack of integrity. Both offenses are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from service under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. The penalty of dismissal carries the accessory penalties of cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government, and a bar from taking civil service examinations. The Court found no merit in petitioner’s claims of restitution, lack of personal use, good faith, or her length of service as mitigating circumstances.