A.C. No. 8776 - Sosa vs. Mendoza

Rogelio L. Beray was the Chief of the Subsidiary and Revenue Section of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), with delegated authority to sign Requests for Obligation and Allotment (ROAs) and Disbursement Vouchers (DVs) for payments not exceeding P200,000.00.
Melissa T. Espina and Violeta R. Tadeo served as Accountant III in the Bookkeeping Section, tasked with controlling allotment releases, recording accounting entries, maintaining Project Cost Sheets, and preparing journals and analyses of obligations.

In January 2002, the DPWH issued Department Order No. 15, series of 2002, which established a committee to investigate news reports on alleged illegal disbursements and irregularities in procedures related to emergency purchases/repairs of DPWH-owned motor vehicles for 2001.
The investigation uncovered anomalies involving more than 7,000 transactions totaling P139,000,000.00, with a specific complaint-affidavit filed on July 12, 2002, against several employees—including Beray, Espina, and Tadeo—stemming from irregularities connected to the emergency repair of a Nissan Pick-up (vehicle TAG 211).

Beray approved reimbursements for the emergency repair of vehicle TAG 211 and purchases of spare parts even though the documents supporting the transactions were irregular (e.g., spare parts that did not qualify as emergency repairs and alterations in the ROA amount).
It was found that Beray signed ROAs for amounts exceeding his delegated limit of P200,000.00 and approved vouchers without the necessary counter-signatures or prior higher authority approval.
Espina and Tadeo were charged with improperly charging the expenses for the repairs against funds (Capital Outlay) where such use was not warranted under the rules, in violation of pertinent provisions of the General Appropriations Act.

Beray guilty of gross neglect of duty—recommended penalty of dismissal from service.
Espina and Tadeo liable for inefficiency in the performance of their official duties—penalized with suspension (six (6) months and one (1) day).

Subsequent appeals were made to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which affirmed the findings for Espina and Tadeo and clarified that Beray was also guilty of grave misconduct, imposing the penalty of dismissal with accessory penalties (cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from public office).
The Court of Appeals (CA), in its August 28, 2009 Decision, modified the penalties:

Beray’s liability was reduced to simple neglect of duty, resulting in a suspension of three (3) months and one (1) day without pay.
The suspension penalty for Espina and Tadeo was increased to eight (8) months and one (1) day without pay.

Motions for partial reconsideration were subsequently filed but denied, prompting the filing of Petitions for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The consolidated petitions raised questions regarding the nature of Beray’s neglect (simple versus gross) and the proper classification of the acts committed by Espina and Tadeo as inefficient or incompetent performance of duty.
After thorough review, the Supreme Court reversed the CA’s finding on Beray by holding him guilty of gross neglect of duty and remanding a dismissal penalty, while it affirmed, with modification, the findings and penalties imposed on Espina and Tadeo.

Was Beray’s failure to verify and properly process the altered ROA—especially the absence of required counter-signatures—a manifestation of simple neglect or did it constitute gross neglect of duty?
Did his reliance on the certifications and actions of his subordinates relieve him of his supervisory responsibility?

Is it permissible under government accounting rules to summarize multiple Disbursement Vouchers into a single ROA without individual corresponding ROAs?
Did their failure to secure higher authority approval and to ensure that supporting documents were complete and proper amount to inefficiency in the performance of their official duties?