G.R. No. 94070 April 10, 1992
ROSALINDA DE PERIO SANTOS, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CATALINO MACARAIG and SECRETARY RAUL MANGLAPUS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosalinda de Perio-Santos, a career service officer with the rank of Chief of Mission II and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, was appointed as Permanent Representative to the Philippine Mission to the United Nations and other International Organizations (MISUNPHIL) in Geneva, Switzerland. On April 6, 1987, she sought leave to spend Easter in New York with her family at no government expense, purchasing two non-transferable, non-refundable discounted tickets for herself and her adopted daughter. Before departure, she received instructions to attend the UNCTAD G-77 Preparatory Conference in Havana. For this official trip, she was entitled to reimbursement for an economy roundtrip fare from Geneva to New York to Geneva (part of her Geneva-New York-Havana-New York-Geneva itinerary). Instead of buying a new economy ticket, she used the discounted tickets for the Geneva-New York-Geneva leg, costing SFr. 1,597 for both, and requested reimbursement only for that amount, saving the government SFr. 1,399 compared to the entitled SFr. 2,996. The DFA later questioned payment for her daughter’s ticket. Petitioner refunded the full SFr. 1,597 and then claimed the entitled SFr. 2,996. Administrative charges were filed against her. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs found her guilty of misconduct (not originally charged), imposed a reprimand, and recalled her to the home office. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President. President Corazon C. Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 122, finding her guilty of dishonesty based on her certification regarding the tickets and her telex response about her daughter’s fare, and imposed the penalty of reprimand with recall to the home office.

ISSUE

Whether Administrative Order No. 122 of the Office of the President, finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and imposing a reprimand with recall, is supported by substantial evidence and issued without grave abuse of discretion.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside Administrative Order No. 122 insofar as it found petitioner guilty of dishonesty and reprimanded her. The Court held that a careful review of the records failed to yield any evidence of dishonesty or an intent to cheat and defraud the government. Petitioner’s failure to disclose that the discounted tickets included her daughter’s fare was harmless and inconsequential, as the tickets were inseparable, non-transferable, non-cancellable, and non-refundable, effectively constituting one whole fare for the discount. Using the discounted tickets was beneficial to the government, saving SFr. 1,399. Petitioner was motivated by the best of motives. However, the Court affirmed the order recalling her to the home office. As a holder of a primarily confidential position, her foreign assignment was at the pleasure of the President. The recall order was a valid exercise of authority by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs as an alter ego of the President, merely changing her post or transferring her work location. The Court could not order her reinstatement to the Geneva post, as that would usurp the President’s exclusive appointing power.