Title
Cabotage vs. Field Investigation Office, Office of the Ombudsman
Case
G.R. No. 239315
Decision Date
Jun 23, 2021
COA employees received illegal LWUA bonuses, violating RA 6758. Found guilty of Grave Misconduct; dismissed, forfeiting benefits. Retired employees' cases dismissed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 239315)

Factual Background

The LWUA's Internal Control Office issued a memorandum detailing the irregular disbursements, which were processed through manager’s checks based on inadequate documentation. These disbursements were allegedly recorded as payments for “13th month pay and other bonuses” without proper legal authority. The petitioners, as COA personnel, were alleged to have received these disbursements, thus violating R.A. No. 6758, which prohibits such additional compensation for COA officials.

Ombudsman Complaint

On August 4, 2014, the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against the petitioners and LWUA officials for violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713) and Grave Misconduct as outlined in the Civil Service rules. The Ombudsman alleged that the petitioners knowingly accepted illegal monetary benefits, thus acting with misconduct.

Defense and Counterarguments

Petitioners argued that the Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction due to previous investigations by the COA and asserted they acted in good faith, believing the monetary benefits were lawful based on various board resolutions from the LWUA. They contended that the benefits were routine for employees of LWUA, including those from different government agencies assigned there.

Ombudsman Rulings

The Ombudsman ruled in their Joint Resolution dated August 7, 2015, that the petitioners were guilty of Grave Misconduct due to their acceptance of the LWUA benefits, which they deemed illegal under constitutional provisions aimed at ensuring the independence of the COA. Consequently, the Ombudsman recommended dismissal from the service as the appropriate penalty.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman's decision regarding the petitioners, substantively ruling that they were guilty of Grave Misconduct while dismissing charges against two petitioners who had already retired. The CA confirmed that the filed complaint was outside the timeframe for jurisdiction over retired individuals.

Legal Findings

The Court ruled that the acceptance of additional monetary benefits by petitioners constituted Grave Misconduct as it was intentional, violated known legal prohibitions, and showcased a disr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.