G.R. No. 175939 - People vs. Masala y Lagman

On February 10, 2004, Atty. Francis Allan Rubio, formerly Director IV of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and legal staff of retired Senior Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo, filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Chief Justice.
The complaint alleged the criminal act of malversation through the falsification of public documents, centering on the unauthorized release of his overtime pay amounting to P1,900.00.
The alleged irregularity occurred when Atty. Rubio attempted to claim his overtime pay for work rendered from November 05 to 09, 1993 during the impeachment cases against the Chief Justice.
Upon his inquiry in January 2004, Mr. Jesus Moncayo, Cashier III and head of the Cash Disbursement Section, explained that the amount had been recorded as an “account payable” and would be disbursed via a voucher.
Subsequent follow-ups revealed that a forged signature on the payroll had led to the erroneous release and claim of the overtime pay by an unidentified person.
On February 11, 2004, Atty. Rubio withdrew his complaint after receiving the disputed P1,900.00 from Mr. Moncayo.

On February 16, 2004, the Office of the Chief Attorney recommended that Atty. Rubio’s letter-complaint be referred to the CID-OAS for further investigation.
The investigation aimed to:

Determine the individual(s) responsible for the alleged forgery and the improper release of overtime pay.
Recommend measures for the Cashier Division to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents.

Ms. Araceli Bayuga, SC Judicial Staff Officer, Collection and Disbursement Division, FMBO.
Mr. Jesus R. Moncayo, Cashier III, Collection and Disbursement Division, FMBO.
Ms. Ludeva Medina, former Judicial Staff Head of the Office of Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo and presently PET Supervising Judicial Staff Officer, Office of Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga.
Atty. Francis Allan Rubio, former legal staff in the aforementioned office.
Mr. Roberto Angelias, former Court Stenographer II, now Clerk III.
Mr. Romeo B. Garrovillas, Messenger, Collection and Disbursement Division, FMBO.

It was ascertained that Atty. Rubio was entitled to overtime pay for work rendered in November 2003 during the impeachment proceedings.
The Office of Justice Bellosillo was preoccupied due to the imminent retirement of Justice Bellosillo.
Atty. Rubio was in the process of transferring to the Office of the Ombudsman at the time.
The investigation revealed that the voucher supposedly evidencing payment bore a signature that did not match Atty. Rubio’s own signature.
Testimonies provided by Mr. Moncayo, Mrs. Bayuga, and Mr. Garrovillas clarified that:

Mr. Moncayo admitted remitting the amount to Atty. Rubio but denied any improper conduct or direct involvement in the unauthorized release.
Mrs. Bayuga’s comparison of signatures did not yield conclusive results, and she noted that such an incident was unprecedented in her long service.
Mr. Garrovillas denied releasing the funds and indicated that standard protocol would normally require proper identification or a notarized Special Power of Attorney (SPA) for such transactions.

The CID-OAS inspection of the payroll confirmed the discrepancy in signatures and the absence of a proper voucher, concluding that the act was deliberate, though the exact perpetrator remained unidentified.

The CID-OAS recommended administrative charges against Mr. Jesus R. Moncayo for neglect of duty.

It was highlighted that Moncayo, as head of the Cash Disbursement Section, failed to enforce proper procedures such as the verification of identification or SPA in releasing overtime pay.

The investigation process and findings spurred the formulation of new safeguards.

Mrs. Corazon M. Ordoñez, Director V of the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, was tasked to propose guidelines for the release of cash benefits to Court officials and employees.
These proposals were subsequently commented on by pertinent officials, including Atty. Eden Candelaria.

The Circular prescribed revised guidelines for the distribution of salaries, allowances, overtime pay, fringe benefits, and other emoluments.
Key provisions included:

Cash benefits being disbursed only to key officials directly, with other employees claiming their benefits at designated counters.
The implementation of a schedule for distribution based on surname.
Mandatory presentation of identification, detailed counting of cash, and acknowledgment of receipt by signing the payroll.
The strict rule that payment must not be released to any person other than the designated employee, except under exceptional circumstances backed by a notarized SPA.

The primary issue that remained was the determination of the administrative liability of Mr. Moncayo.
Despite Atty. Rubio’s withdrawal of his complaint, the rules on administrative cases stipulated that withdrawal does not preclude disciplinary action where charges have merit.
The Court emphasized that administrative actions serve the public interest and that the integrity of public office must not be compromised by unilateral acts of complainants.
In considering the responsibilities inherent in his position, Mr. Moncayo’s failure to observe proper procedures amounted to negligence.
Given his long years of service, lack of demonstrable bad faith, and retirement on September 01, 2004, the Court opted to impose a fine equivalent to one month’s salary to be deducted from his retirement benefits instead of a suspension.

Whether the withdrawal of Atty. Rubio’s complaint should bar or mitigate the imposition of administrative sanctions against Mr. Moncayo.

The issue centers on the principle that administrative liability is independent of the complainant’s subsequent withdrawal, especially when charges bear merit.

Whether Mr. Moncayo, as the head of the Cash Disbursement Section, adequately observed and enforced the required procedural safeguards for releasing overtime pay.

This includes the evaluation of established protocols such as the mandatory presentation of valid identification or a Special Power of Attorney.

Determining the appropriate extent of administrative sanction in view of the irregularity in the release of funds and the evidentiary findings of procedural negligence.

The issue also involves balancing punitive measures with considerations of Moncayo’s long service and the isolated nature of the incident.

The broader concern of ensuring that internal controls and disciplinary measures in public office are enforced to maintain public trust even in the absence of direct incriminating evidence regarding the mysterious claimant.