G.R. No. 212641 - Fajardo vs. Corral

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212641)

Factual Background

Fajardo was entrusted with PCSO funds and authorized to draw cash advances of PhP 3,000,000.00, consisting of PhP 2,000,000.00 for sweepstakes and lotto low-tier prizes and PhP 1,000,000.00 for the PCSO-POSC Scratch IT Project, and was bonded with the Bureau of Treasury for PhP 1,500,000.00. The PCSO issued her a vault to keep money and documents, of which she alone had access and custody. On November 13, 2008, the PCSO Internal Audit Department conducted a spot audit and discovered a shortage of PhP 218,461.00. After the audit, Fajardo did not report for work; auditors sealed her vault on November 17, 2008 and her steel cabinet on November 28, 2008.

Discovery of Additional Shortages

Pursuant to a Commission on Audit recommendation, a cash count was conducted on January 8, 2009 in the presence of Fajardo and representatives from IAD and COA. That count showed cash shortages of PhP 1,621,476.00 and missing checks of PhP 37,513.00, producing a total shortage of PhP 1,877,450.00. The audit also disclosed unpaid paid winning sweepstakes tickets dating from 2004 amounting to PhP 1,024,870.00 that were not processed for liquidation or replenishment.

Demand and Fajardo’s Responses

On January 13, 2009, Fajardo was ordered to produce the missing funds and explain the shortage, but she failed to account for or produce the funds. In a Letter dated January 27, 2009, she admitted her mistake and offered to settle by waiving her rights to bonuses and monetary benefits for 2008 and by paying PhP 300,000.00; that letter did not contest the regularity of the spot audits. In her Counter-Affidavit before the Ombudsman, Fajardo denied that spot audits were properly conducted, alleged exclusion of certain vale sheets and cash items by auditors, claimed she was not given an opportunity to close her books prior to the cash count, and asserted that she was forced to sign Certifications and Demands on two occasions.

Administrative Complaint and Ombudsman Proceedings

Respondent Corral filed a Complaint-Affidavit docketed OMB-C-A-09-0355-G charging Fajardo with Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service. In a Decision dated September 1, 2010, the Ombudsman found Fajardo guilty of the charged offenses and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service with accessory penalties. The Ombudsman’s fallo directed the Chairman of the PCSO to implement the decision and cited compliance with Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 15(3) of R.A. No. 6770. Fajardo’s motion for reconsideration before the Ombudsman was denied in an Order dated March 16, 2011.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Fajardo filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated September 16, 2013, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s September 1, 2010 Decision and the March 16, 2011 Order. Fajardo’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated May 9, 2014.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

The sole issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether Fajardo was guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service.

Standard of Review Applied by the Supreme Court

The Court reiterated that factual questions are not subject to review in a Rule 45 petition because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and that factual findings of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, citing Fajardo v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 173268, August 23, 2012, and other authorities. The Court applied the substantial evidence standard, defining substantial evidence as relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, citing Advincula v. Dicen, G.R. No. 162403, May 16, 2005.

Application of Law to Facts and Evidentiary Findings

The Court found that the evidence established an unexplained shortage of PhP 1,877,450.00 in cash and cash items and paid winning sweepstakes tickets amounting to PhP 1,024,870.00 in Fajardo’s custody. The Court relied on two Certifications and Demands (Cash Examination Count Sheet) signed by Fajardo reflecting the shortage and on her January 27, 2009 admission of accountability. The Court rejected Fajardo’s argument, drawn from Rueda, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 129064, November 29, 2000, that signing certifications did not constitute admission, holding that regardless of whether the signatures alone equated to admission, the existence of the shortage and her failure to satisfactorily explain it after reasonable opportunity were sufficient to support administrative liability.

Grounds for the Administrative Offenses

The Court analyzed the elements of the charged offenses under applicable jurisprudence and issuances. Under CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, serious dishonesty includes circumstances where the dishonest act directly involves money for which the respondent is accountable and shows intent to commit material gain, graft, or corruption. The Court concluded that Fajardo’s acts constituted serious dishonesty because the shortage concerned funds under her direct accountability and her failure to account evidenced an intent to commit material gain, graft, or corruption. The Court held that proof of actual misappropriation was not required where an accountable officer fails

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 212641)

Parties and Procedural Posture

ANGELICA A. FAJARDO was the Officer-in-Charge, Division Chief III, Prize Payment (Teller) Division of the Treasury Department of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office.
MARIO J. CORRAL was the Officer-in-Charge Manager of the Treasury Department of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and the complainant in the administrative proceeding.
Corral filed a Complaint-Affidavit docketed as OMB-C-A-09-0355-G before the Office of the Ombudsman charging Fajardo with Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service.
The Ombudsman rendered a Decision dated September 1, 2010 finding Fajardo guilty and meting the penalty of dismissal from the service.
Fajardo filed a motion for reconsideration which the Ombudsman denied in an Order dated March 16, 2011.
Fajardo filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 121180, which the Court of Appeals denied in a Decision dated September 16, 2013 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 9, 2014.
Fajardo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court with the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution.

Key Factual Allegations

Fajardo was entrusted with authority to draw cash advances of PhP 3,000,000.00 and was bonded by the Bureau of Treasury for PhP 1,500,000.00.
Fajardo had exclusive access to a vault issued to her by PCSO and was the custodian of money and documents in her custody.
An Internal Audit Department spot audit on November 13, 2008 disclosed a shortage of PhP 218,461.00 in Fajardo's cash and cash items.
The auditors sealed Fajardo's vault on November 17, 2008 and her steel cabinet on November 28, 2008 after she failed to report for work.
A cash count conducted on January 8, 2009 in the presence of Fajardo and representatives from IAD and COA revealed missing cash of PhP 1,621,476.00 and missing checks of PhP 37,513.00, totaling PhP 1,877,450.00.
The January 8, 2009 count also disclosed unpaid winning sweepstakes tickets in Fajardo's possession amounting to PhP 1,024,870.00 dating back to 2004.
Fajardo received a demand letter dated January 13, 2009 ordering her to produce the missing funds and explain the shortage, but she failed to satisfactorily account for the funds.
In a Letter dated January 27, 2009 Fajardo admitted her mistake and offered to waive monetary benefits for 2008 and to pay PhP 300,000.00 as settlement.
The evidence included two Certifications and Demands (Cash Examination Count Sheet) bearing Fajardo's signatures reflecting the declared shortage.
Fajardo later contested the audits and claimed in her Counter-Affidavit that the spot audits were irregular, that certain vale sheets and cash items were excluded, and that she was forced to sign documents on two occasions.

Issue

Whether Fajardo is guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service.

Ombudsman Decision

The Ombudsman found Fajardo guilty of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service in a Decision dated September 1, 2010.
The Ombudsman imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service with all accessory penalties.
The Ombudsman directed the Chairman of PCSO to implement the Decision and to submit a compliance report, citing Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 15(3) of R.A. No. 6770.
The Ombudsman denied Fajardo's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated March 16, 2011.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals denied Fajardo's Petition for Review and affir