Case Summary (G.R. No. 196201)
Facts of the Case
Florentino Veloso was charged with three counts of dishonesty for unauthorized withdrawals amounting to ₱50,000, which was held in trust for a client, Juanito Quino. Quino deposited this money as part of a loan restructuring effort. Veloso, without notification or authority, and with the assistance of Quedancor's cashier, withdrew this amount on three separate occasions. Upon discovery, Quino demanded the return of his money, leading to a memorandum from the manager of Quedancor requiring Veloso to explain the withdrawals. Veloso complied by returning the money and admitted to receiving the funds, acknowledging the intended purpose for loan repayment. As a result, Quedancor found him guilty and dismissed him from service. The CSC upheld this decision upon appeal. Veloso subsequently sought redress from the Court of Appeals (CA), which determined him guilty but modified the penalty to a one-year suspension without pay, citing mitigating circumstances.
The Present Petition
The CSC contends that the CA disregarded established laws and jurisprudence regarding administrative penalties for dishonesty, arguing that dismissal is warranted without any mitigating circumstances. It particularly emphasizes that Veloso's length of service actually aggravated his offense, as he abused his supervisory position. The CSC considers his admission of guilt and restitution irrelevant since these actions followed the offense and were likely motivated by fear of administrative sanctions.
The Issue
The central issue of the case revolves around determining the appropriate administrative penalty for Veloso in light of his conduct as a public servant.
Court's Ruling
The Court granted the CSC's petition, reinstating Veloso's dismissal from service. It highlighted that Section 52(A)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases imposes dismissal as the required penalty for dishonesty, emphasizing the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust. The Court underscored that although mitigating circumstances exist in administrative cases, they must be substantiated by clear proof that can justify reducing the penalty.
Analysis of Mitigating Circumstances
The Court disagreed with the CA's assessment that Veloso's length of service, admission of guilt, and restitution of funds warranted a reduction in penalty. It stated that length of service could be both mitigating or aggravating depending on the case facts. Here, Veloso's lengthy tenure allowed him to commit his offenses, showing a betrayal of trust. The Court also noted that the nature of Quedancor's business required high standards of integrity, rendering Veloso's actions particularly serious.
Integrity in Public Service
The Court emphasized reinforcing public accountability and trust in
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 196201)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition filed by Francisco T. Duque III, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) regarding the administrative penalty imposed on Florentino Veloso.
- The CA modified CSC Resolution No. 061714, which found Veloso guilty of dishonesty, reducing his penalty from dismissal to a one-year suspension without pay.
Facts of the Case
- Florentino Veloso was the District Supervisor at the Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation (Quedancor) in Cagayan de Oro City.
- He faced three counts of dishonesty for unauthorized withdrawals of P50,000 from complainant Juanito Quino, who had deposited the amount for loan repayment.
- Veloso withdrew the funds without the complainant's knowledge or authority, assisted by Quedancor’s cashier.
- Upon discovery, Quino demanded the return of his money, leading to a memorandum from Quedancor’s manager requiring Veloso to explain and return the funds.
- Veloso complied and admitted to receiving the money, which he knew was intended for Quino’s loan repayment.
- Quedancor found Veloso guilty of dishonesty and dismissed him; the CSC upheld this decision.
- Veloso appealed to the CA, which upheld the dishonesty finding but changed the penalty to a one-year suspension based on mitigating circumstances.
Issues Raised
- The primary issue is the determination of the appropriate administrative penalty for Veloso's actions, specifically whether the penalty