G.R. No. 238643 - Saligumba vs. Commission on Audit XIII

A complaint for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct was filed by the Commission on Audit (COA), Regional Office No. XIII, against Maria Teresa B. Saligumba in her capacity as Assistant Municipal Treasurer of the Municipal Government of Barobo, Surigao del Sur.
The complaint was brought by State Auditors Cheryl Cantalejo-Dime and Teodora J. Beniga who later alleged that an examination covering December 7, 2012 to June 24, 2013 revealed a cash shortage amounting to P223,050.93 in Saligumba’s accountability.

During a cash and accounts examination conducted on June 24, 2013, the state auditors noted a shortage and prepared a “Report of Cash Examination,” which Saligumba acknowledged.
A subsequent verification on May 14, 2014 confirmed that despite full restitution from July 3, 2013 to August 7, 2013, there was a significant discrepancy that raised questions regarding the handling of public funds.

In her Counter-Affidavit dated February 9, 2016, Saligumba admitted to the cash shortage but explained that she was following a directive of then Municipal Mayor Arturo Ronquillo to issue official receipts to market vendors for delinquent tax payments even in the absence of actual cash receipts.
Saligumba argued that this practice, allegedly common with her predecessor, was intended to enable market vendors to renew their permits and that she had fully restituted the entire amount despite the vendors reneging on their installment payments.

On November 29, 2016, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered a decision finding Saligumba guilty of Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty.
The penalty imposed included dismissal from service, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from government re-employment.
Municipal Mayor Felixberto S. Urbiztondo issued Office Order No. 01, Series of 2017 to enforce the Ombudsman’s decision effective January 9, 2017.

Saligumba filed a motion for reconsideration on January 12, 2017, supported by additional affidavits and documentary evidence.
The motion was denied by the Ombudsman on February 15, 2017, prompting her to file a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA).
On November 17, 2017, the CA affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision, and subsequent motions for reconsideration with the CA were also denied.

Whether Saligumba was accorded the fundamental elements of procedural due process during the formal investigation.
Whether the filing of pleadings without proper evidentiary consideration by the investigating agency violates due process requirements.

Whether it is proper and justifiable to immediately enforce the Ombudsman’s decision, even before the filing or resolution of a motion for reconsideration or appeal.

Whether the elements constituting Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty are present in Saligumba’s conduct as evaluated in the case.
Whether her conduct of issuing official receipts without receiving cash payments meets the threshold for these offenses.

Whether Saligumba is entitled to mitigated penalties based on her length of service, her performance record, and her assertion of being a first-time offender.
Whether full restitution of the cash shortage should favorably influence the imposition of a lesser penalty.