Case Digest (G.R. No. 242901)
Facts:
Ma. Luisa R. Loreno, a Teacher I assigned at Andres Bonifacio Integrated School (ABIS) in Mandaluyong City, was the petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding initiated after a Commission on Audit team on 12 January 2009 issued an Audit Observation Memorandum covering March 2006 to June 2008 that initially showed a cash shortage of P263,515.96 in ABIS cash accounts. A subsequent COA examination instituted on 13 March 2009 focused on the cash accounts of several school officers and resulted in a finding that Loreno, who had been tasked by the principal as an Acting Collecting Officer, incurred a cash shortage of P171,240.01 representing the balance of collections from authorized school contributions and school operating funds; demand letters were issued but Loreno failed to produce the funds. Loreno filed a Position Paper denying that she was an accountable officer, conceding only that she assisted in counting and collecting payments for student identification cards and asserting ir...Case Digest (G.R. No. 242901)
Facts:
Petitioner Ma. Luisa R. Loreno, a Teacher I at Andres Bonifacio Integrated School in Mandaluyong City, was charged by the Field Investigation Office I of the Office of the Ombudsman after a COA audit (March 2006–June 2008) disclosed a cash shortage initially of P263,515.96 and later attributed to Loreno as P171,240.01, and she failed to produce the amount despite demand.The Ombudsman rendered a Decision dated 28 June 2016 finding Loreno guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing dismissal with accessory penalties; the Court of Appeals affirmed in resolutions dated 11 January 2018 and 18 October 2018, and the Supreme Court denied the petition.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding Loreno an accountable officer as defined under the law?
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding Loreno guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)