Case Summary (G.R. No. 215994)
Background of the Case
In May 2005, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed between GSIS and the OGCC for the extrajudicial foreclosure of delinquent loan accounts. The OGCC was to receive special assessment fees for its services, which totaled approximately P11,845,000. This arrangement led to subsequent actions involving the distribution and release of funds that would later come under scrutiny for legality and compliance with the law.
Auditor Investigation Findings
In an audit conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA) in January 2008, irregularities were noted regarding disbursements amounting to P130,000 for alleged reading materials related to the foreclosure project. These payments were made directly to Faller and Devanadera without proper procurement processes and documentation, violating the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.
Initiation of Complaints
As a result of the COA findings, the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman initiated an administrative and criminal complaint against Faller, Devanadera, Cruz, and another official, accusing them of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and violations of public funds management laws.
Defense and Claims
Faller and Devanadera argued that their receipt of special assessment fees was in accordance with the Administrative Code and internal OGCC rules that outlined their entitlement to such funds. They contended that allegations of misconduct stemmed from a lack of documentation attributable to Cruz, who had left the OGCC.
Ombudsman’s Ruling
The Ombudsman found all parties guilty and ordered their dismissal while imposing a joint restitution of P760,000 to the OGCC. The ruling emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the existence of the claimed reading materials and found that the funds had been misappropriated.
Appeals and Court of Appeals Decision
Faller appealed, and the Court of Appeals modified the Ombudsman’s ruling, reducing Faller’s culpability to simple misconduct. The court found insufficient evidence to establish elements of corruption or intent to violate the law, which are necessary for a grave misconduct charge.
The Supreme Court’s Resolution
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ findings, holding that Faller should only face liability for simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interes
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 215994)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Office of the Ombudsman and Field Investigation Office against Rolando B. Faller.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) had previously found Faller guilty of simple misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
- The sanctions included a one-year suspension, restitution of P760,000.00 to the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), and disqualification from promotion for the same period.
Facts of the Case
- On May 25, 2005, GSIS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the OGCC to manage the extrajudicial foreclosure of delinquent real estate loans, with special assessment fees for services rendered.
- The OGCC received a total of P11,845,000.00 from the GSIS Foreclosure Project.
- Devanadera, then GCC, authorized the release of funds as attorney's fees, including payments to Faller.
- The funds were released through various memoranda and checks, some designated for the purchase of reading materials.
- The Commission on Audit (COA) later discovered irregularities in the disbursement of funds, leading to a complaint against Devanadera, Faller, Cruz, and Capili for malversation and administrative misconduct.
Ombudsman Ruling
- The Ombudsman found all parties guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the be