Case Digest (G.R. No. 145564)
Facts:
The case involves Corazon G. Buntag, a Social Welfare Assistant at the City Social Welfare and Development Office (CSWDO) in Cagayan de Oro City. She was appointed as the chairman for the Universal Children's Month event held on October 26 and 27, 1995. During this event, certain individuals were invited to serve as judges for various contests involving day care pupils. The controversy arose when Buntag was found to have falsified six reimbursement receipts, which falsely indicated that six judges were paid honoraria totaling P1,200.00, despite the fact that these judges did not attend the event. Instead, the funds were used to reimburse Felisa Mantilla, a day care worker, who had initially advanced money for decoration materials for the event.
On April 23, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) found Buntag guilty of six counts of Falsification of Official Document and ordered her dismissal from service under Section 9, Rule XIV, Book V of Executive Order No. 29...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 145564)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- Petitioner Corazon G. Buntag was a Social Welfare Assistant at the City Social Welfare and Development Office (CSWDO) in Cagayan de Oro City.
- She was designated as the chairman of the Universal Children's Month held on October 26 and 27, 1995.
The Alleged Offense:
- Petitioner falsified six reimbursement receipts, each reflecting an amount of P1,200.00, which were supposed to represent the honorarium of six judges for the event.
- However, the judges did not attend the event, and the amount was instead paid to Ms. Felisa Mantilla, a day care worker, who had advanced funds for the purchase of decoration materials.
Administrative Proceedings:
- The Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao) found petitioner guilty of six counts of Falsification of Official Document and initially ordered her dismissal from service.
- Upon reconsideration, the penalty was modified to a one-year suspension from service.
Judicial Proceedings:
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) in line with the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto.
- The CA affirmed the Ombudsman's decision, prompting petitioner to file the present petition.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Ombudsman's decision.
- Whether the penalty of one-year suspension imposed on petitioner was excessive, oppressive, or harsh under the circumstances.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the penalty of one-year suspension, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA or the Ombudsman. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.