G.R. No. 216574 - Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau-OMB-MOLEO vs. Miranda

In April 2000 the Philippine Marine Corps (PMC) released P36,768,028.95 as Combat Clothing Allowance and Individual Equipment Allowance (CCIE) for CY 1999, computed at P8,381.25 (combat clothing) plus P6,337.80 (individual equipment) = P14,719.05 per enlisted personnel. The disbursement was effected through nineteen checks signed by Deputized Disbursing Officer Capt. Felicisimo C. Millado and approved by PMC Commandant BGen. Percival M. Subala; checks were payable to Millado as deputized disbursing officer.
Commission on Audit (COA) records triggered a fact-finding investigation by the Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (FFIB-OMB-MOLEO). FFIB alleged that COA’s random sampling of liquidation payrolls showed that many enlisted personnel did not receive the P14,719.05 they purportedly were due; numerous personnel disowned signatures on payrolls and denied authorizing representatives to receive funds on their behalf. Payrolls were prepared according to rank rather than unit assignment, deviating from standard procedure. The PMC personnel said they had historically received only P200 clothing allowance and not the large CCIE sums.

Respondents charged in OMB-P-A-06-0106-A: MGen. Renato P. Miranda (formerly Col. Miranda), BGen. Percival M. Subala, Lt. Col. Jeson P. Cabatbat, Maj. Adelo B. Jandayan, Capt. Felicisimo C. Millado, Capt. Edmundo D. Yurong, and Carolyn L. Bontolo. Charges included malversation through falsification of public documents, violations of COA Rules and Regulations, and violation of Section 3(e), RA No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
FFIB-OMB-MOLEO alleged Miranda lacked authority to approve CCIE disbursements (authority vested in the head of office, BGen. Subala, per GAAM Sec. 168). FFIB further alleged that Miranda authorized Maj. Jandayan—who was not a duly authorized disbursing officer—to receive the CCIE funds by a document titled “Funds Entrusted to Agent Officer/Teller,” and that many supposed beneficiaries later denied receipt of the funds.
Respondents’ defenses: Miranda claimed Subala authorized him to approve disbursement vouchers and that, being presented with documents showing compliance with requirements and availability of funds, he had no discretion but to approve. Co-respondents contended they acted in a ministerial capacity and relied on subordinate certifications and review.

ODO-MOLEO Decision (Feb. 27, 2009): Found five respondents, including Renato P. Miranda, guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty; ordered dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave and perpetual disqualification from re-employment. BGen. Subala and Carolyn Bontolo were exonerated; Maj. Jandayan’s retirement benefits (except accrued leave) forfeited. Joint Order (Nov. 25, 2011) denied motions for reconsideration of Miranda, Capt. Millado, and Lt. Col. Cabatbat.
Court of Appeals (CA) petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 127459): CA Decision (July 30, 2014) reversed and set aside ODO-MOLEO’s findings as to Renato Miranda and exonerated him for lack of substantial evidence, relying on precedents (Albert v. Gangan) that allow reliance on subordinate certifications when a head merely approves processed documents. CA Resolution (Jan. 13, 2015) denied FFIB’s motion for reconsideration.
Present Supreme Court petition (Rule 45): FFIB-OMB-MOLEO, through the Solicitor General, sought review of CA’s reversal on two principal grounds: (1) CA erred in holding absence of direct evidence of conspiracy precluded liability; and (2) CA’s reliance on Gangan was misplaced because Miranda’s acts (not mere signing) included entrusting funds to an unauthorized officer and thus go beyond the protective rule in Gangan.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that, in the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, respondent Renato P. Miranda cannot be held administratively liable for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Albert v. Gangan (and similar jurisprudence) to absolve Miranda by allowing a defense of reliance on subordinate certifications and ministerial approval.

Whether Miranda’s act of designating Maj. Adelo B. Jandayan as recipient/disburser of CCIE funds—when Jandayan lacked authority—constituted the “final operative act” sufficient to support liability for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.
What quantum of proof governs administrative adjudication of grave misconduct and dishonesty and whether the record met that standard (substantial evidence).