Case Digest (G.R. No. 253448)
Facts:
Mark Franklin A. Lim II v. Field Investigation Bureau, Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices [MOLEO], G.R. No. 253448, January 22, 2024, Supreme Court Second Division, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court.At the time the administrative complaint was initiated, Mark Franklin A. Lim II (petitioner) was Head of the Coast Guard Special Service Office (CGSSO) of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). The Field Investigation Bureau (FIB) of OMB-MOLEO filed charges after the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) PCG-2015-018 on April 15, 2015, noting deficiencies in Special Cash Advances (SCA) released to 21 Special Disbursing Officers (SDOs), including missing office orders, incomplete supplier addresses on receipts, and dealers denying issuance of some documents. The COA identified PHP 500,000.00 released to Lim for procurement of office supplies and IT equipment.
Based on the AOM, the FIB administratively charged Lim and other PCG officials with serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; criminal complaints for malversation through falsification and graft-related offenses were also filed but later dismissed by the Ombudsman in a consolidated resolution. The FIB alleged Lim received the PHP 500,000.00 SCA without an office order designating him as SDO and that the procurements did not go through public bidding nor via authorized alternative methods.
Lim's defense was that he was duly designated as SDO by Special Order No. 48 dated March 18, 2013, authorizing disbursement up to PHP 500,000.00, that COA only questioned PHP 77,166.25 which he settled, and that procurement occurred during relief operations after Typhoon Yolanda justifying emergency procurement. He also stressed the criminal complaints were dismissed by the Ombudsman.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO), in a Consolidated Decision dated July 19, 2017, found Lim and other PCG officials guilty of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and imposed dismissal with accessory penalties. The OMB-MOLEO denied Lim’s motion for reconsideration in a Consolidated Order dated November 6, 2017. Lim filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision dated September 26, 2019, the CA (Fifth Division) affirmed the OMB-MOLEO’s factual and legal findings, agreeing that Lim and the other officials failed to comply with ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may the Supreme Court undertake factual review of the OMB-MOLEO and CA findings in this administrative case?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the OMB-MOLEO’s findings that petitioner Lim is guilty of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)