G.R. No. 173333 - Magaling vs. Ong

Ernesto A. Fajardo was employed by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) as a Clerk I from February 26, 1982, to February 29, 1988, and as a Clerk II beginning March 1, 1988.
Due to exigencies in service, Fajardo was designated as a Special Collecting Officer at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Customs House, Collection Division in Pasay City.

In May 2002, Nancy Marco, a Commission on Audit (COA) State Auditor detailed at NAIA Customs House, was directed by her superior, Auditor Melinda Vega-Fria, to conduct a post audit of the daily abstract of collections of all collecting officers.
During the audit, discrepancies emerged in Fajardo’s daily abstract for August 16, 2002, where unusually high check amounts were recorded.
An Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM No. 2002-008) dated November 26, 2002, prepared by State Auditor Prudencia S. Bautista, indicated that Fajardo had an unremitted collection from sales of accountable forms (with money value and documentary stamps) amounting to P20,118,355.00 for January to October 2002.
Further analysis revealed that from January 2000 to October 2002, Fajardo failed to remit a total of P53,214,258.00, later corrected by COA’s final audit report to P53,658,371.00.

On January 6, 2003, Customs Commissioner Antonio M. Bernardo requested the National Bureau of Investigation – National Capital Region (NBI-NCR) to investigate the alleged misappropriation of public funds by Fajardo.
On January 8, 2003, resident auditors (including Marco, Bautista, and Filomena Tolorio) executed separate sworn statements at the NBI affirming discrepancies in monthly and summary analyses of the sale of accountable forms and stamps.
An Information for violation of Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder) was filed against Fajardo on January 10, 2003, and the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 03-0043 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City.

On February 8, 2003, Customs District Collector Celso P. Templo demanded Fajardo to account for the unremitted funds, which Fajardo failed to do.
Mary Susan S. Guillermo, Director of the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman, initiated administrative proceedings by ordering Fajardo to file a counter-affidavit on February 11, 2003.
Fajardo filed his Counter-Affidavit on May 19, 2003, in which he categorically denied any under remittance, arguing that the sale of BOC forms does not automatically involve the sale of documentary stamps. He also challenged the validity of the AOM No. 2002-008.

On May 3, 2005, the Ombudsman rendered a decision finding Fajardo guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct.

The decision based its finding on the discrepancies between actual collections and the amounts remitted, as revealed by the audit report and corroborated by various documentary evidences, including liquidated and unliquidated entries, flow charts of the transaction process, and sworn testimonies.
It was emphasized that as the designated and sole Collecting Officer at NAIA Customs House, Fajardo was responsible for remitting all collections from the sale of BOC Accountable Forms and Customs Documentary Stamps.

Fajardo’s motion for reconsideration was filed but subsequently denied on July 22, 2005.

Fajardo’s case was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, on April 27, 2006, affirmed the dismissal of Fajardo.
The CA found substantial evidence backing the Ombudsman’s finding of dishonesty and grave misconduct, dismissing Fajardo’s assertions regarding evidentiary irregularities and the recommended nature of the Ombudsman’s power.
The petition for review on certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit, and costs were ordered against Fajardo.

Whether competent evidence was presented before the Office of the Ombudsman to establish that Fajardo committed acts amounting to dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to consider or appreciate:

Evidence from the Collecting Division of NAIA Customs House concerning the use and capacity of the single documentary stamp metered machine.
Testimonies and analyses indicating that the proceeds from the sale of documentary stamps were properly remitted and accounted for.
The discrepancies between the amount loaded in the metered machine and the audit sales figures, as well as the reliability of State Auditor Nancy Marco’s testimony.
Findings in the related criminal case which suggested that evidence of Fajardo’s guilt was lacking.

Whether the CA improperly relied on documents not formally introduced or offered as evidence before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Whether the Ombudsman possesses the direct power to dismiss a public official from service rather than merely recommending such removal.