Case Summary (G.R. No. 165132)
Factual Antecedents
Dr. Apolonio was charged with grave misconduct and dishonesty for the alleged unauthorized purchase of gift cheques for NBDB employees using a portion of the budget allocated for a Team Building Seminar Workshop held on December 20-21, 2000. The budget disbursed amounted to P108,000.00, covering allowances based on a National Budget Circular stipulating a daily limit of P900.00 per participant. Employees approached Dr. Apolonio with a request to convert parts of their allowances into cash, to which she purportedly conformed after consulting with a finance officer, Mr. Montealto.
Proceedings Before the Ombudsman
A complaint filed on August 24, 2001, by Nicasio I. Marte against Dr. Apolonio and Mr. Montealto alleged unauthorized fund disbursement. The Ombudsman found both liable for conduct prejudicial to the service but initially exonerated them of grave misconduct and dishonesty. Subsequently, the Acting Ombudsman later adopted a recommendation that resulted in finding Dr. Apolonio guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty, asserting that she illegally diverted funds, constituting technical malversation under the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals
Dr. Apolonio contested the Ombudsman’s decision at the Court of Appeals, which ruled in her favor on two main issues. Firstly, the CA held that the Ombudsman lacks the power to directly impose removal penalties on public officials, citing that Section 13(3), Article XI of the Constitution provides only recommendatory powers. Secondly, while acknowledging the misappropriation of budgetary funds, the CA found insufficient evidence to support grave misconduct or dishonesty, concluding her motives stemmed from employee requests reflecting goodwill.
Ombudsman’s Arguments
The Ombudsman argued that the CA erred in downgrading Dr. Apolonio's culpability, asserting that she intentionally failed to secure necessary authorizations, and that her actions constituted grave misconduct and dishonesty regardless of any humanitarian intentions. The Ombudsman emphasized misappropriation definitions and relevant accounting regulations that limit scrambling funds for unauthorized personal use.
Dr. Apolonio’s Arguments
Dr. Apolonio contended that the CA appropriately identified the limits of the Ombudsman's authority, maintaining the recommendations made are not binding directives. She argued that the law requires misconduct to involve willful violations, which were absent in her actions as she had consulted prior to acting and responded to employee demands in a seasonal spirit.
Issues in the Petition
The principal legal questions considered were whether the Ombudsman could directly impose removal penalties against public officials and whether Dr. Apolonio's actions constituted grave misconduct.
Court’s Ruling
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 165132)
Factual Background
- Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio served as Executive Officer of the National Book Development Board (NBDB) from 1996 until August 26, 2002.
- In December 2000, NBDB approved a two-day team building seminar-workshop scheduled for December 20-21, 2000, with an allowance limit for participants set by Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Circular No. 442 prescribing P900 per participant per day.
- The NBDB disbursed P108,000 to cover the allowances of 60 employees.
- Some employees requested part of their allowance to be given as cash instead of being spent fully in the seminar; Dr. Apolonio approved this after consultation with Finance Chief Rogelio Montealto.
- Following the workshop, SM gift cheques were distributed to participants in lieu of part of their allowance.
Proceedings Before the Ombudsman
- August 24, 2001: Complaint filed by NBDB consultant Nicasio I. Marte against Dr. Apolonio and Mr. Montealto for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for unauthorized purchase and disbursement of gift cheques.
- Dr. Apolonio asserted she acted in good faith motivated by employee welfare.
- Initial investigation by Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Plaridel Oscar J. Bohol found liability for conduct prejudicial to the best interest but exonerated charges of grave misconduct and dishonesty, recommending a six-month suspension.
- Acting Ombudsman adopted GIO Julita M. Calderon’s recommendation instead, which found Dr. Apolonio guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the service, describing her act as technical malversation and illegal conversion of funds, recommending dismissal.
- Acting Ombudsman approved dismissal on August 21, 2002; denial of reconsideration on September 18, 2002.
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals (CA)
- CA granted Dr. Apolonio’s petition on March 23, 2004, setting aside Ombudsman’s decision:
- Held that Ombudsman lacked power to directly impose removal penalty, citing Section 13(3), Article XI of the Constitution, rendering Ombudsman’s powers recommendatory.
- Found Dr. Apolonio realigned funds but did not misappropriate for personal gain; motivated by employee appeal and had no corrupt intent.
- Dr. Apolonio’s acts did not constitute dishonesty; lacked evil or corrupt motive.
- Found liability only for conduct prejudicial to best interest, imposing six-month suspension, deducted from retirement benefits due to her retirement.
- Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration denied on August 23, 2004.
Arguments of the Parties
Ombudsman’s Arguments:
- Challenges CA