marither lee

I.

CABALIT V. COA (2012)

FACTS

            Regional Director,  ldelfonso T. Deloria of the Commission of Audit (COA) directed State Auditors Teodocio D. Cabalit and Emmanuel L. Coloma of the Provincial Revenue Audit Group to conduct a fact-finding investigation on widespread tampering of official receipts of Motor Vehicle Registration during the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.  It was then discovered by the investigators that three employees of Land Transportation Office (LTO) Jagna District Office, Jagna, Bohol:  Leonardo G. Olaivar (Transportation Regulation Officer II/ Office[r]-In-Charge); Gemma P. Cabalit (Cashier II) and Filadelpo S. Apit (Clerk II) are shortchanging the government by tampering with their income reports which resulted in an unreported income totaling Php169,642.50.  The COA Regional Cluster Director Atty. Roy L. Ursal then reported the tampering of official receipts to Deputy Ombudsman Primo C. Miro.  

           

            In a Joint Evaluation Report, Graft Investigators  Pio R. Dargantes and Virginia Palanca-Santiago found grounds to conduct a preliminary investigation. Hence, a formal charge for dishonesty was filed against the petitioners before the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas, and the parties were required to submit their counter-affidavits. In compliance, they submitted separate counter-affidavits, all essentially denying knowledge and responsibility for the anomalies.

            The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas directed the parties to submit their position papers pursuant to Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 17, No cross-examination of State Auditor Cabalit was therefore conducted.  Complying with the above Order, the COA submitted its position paper as well as the petitioners respectively submitted their position papers.  As a result, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas rendered judgment, finding them liable for dishonesty of tampering the official receipts to make it appear that they collected lesser amounts than they actually collected.

HELD

            Petitioners contended   that there was a violation of right  to due process when the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas charged them of administratively liable for dishonesty.

RULING

                The Ombudsman, in the exercise of his duties is given full administrative disciplinary authority. This includes the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or censure of a public officer or employee. Thus, it is settled that the Office of the Ombudsman can directly impose administrative sanctions.
               

                For this reason, public servants must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty.  By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, public officers and employees must faithfully adhere to hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; and must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
               

                Indeed, in this case, the Office of the Ombudsman afforded petitioners every opportunity to defend themselves by allowing them to submit counter-affidavits, position papers, memoranda and other evidence in their defense. Since petitioners have been afforded the right to be heard and to defend themselves, they cannot rightfully complain that they were denied due process of law. Well to remember, due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. It is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.  In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. More often, this opportunity is conferred through written pleadings that the parties submit to present their charges and defenses. As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his or her interests in due course, said party is not denied due process.

           

            The scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained and a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court because this Court is not a trier of facts; it reviews only questions of law. The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings. 
           

            WHEREFORE, the petitions for review on certiorari are DENIED. The assailed Decision dated January 18, 2006 and Resolution dated September 21, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. Nos. 86256, 86394 and 00047 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.  Petitioner Leonardo G. Olaivar is held administratively liable for DISHONESTY and meted the penalty of dismissal from the service as well as the accessory penalties of cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification from re-employment in the government service inherent to said penalty.
 
            With costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

II.

HDMF V.COA

[ G.R. NO. 142297, JUNE 15, 2004 ]

FACTS

            The Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) granted Productivity Incentive Bonus equivalent to one month salary plus allowance to all its personnel in the total amount of Five Million One Hundred Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Ten Pesos and Ninety One Centavos (P5,136,710.91)  pursuant to Republic Act No. 6971, and its Implementing Rules despite the advice of Undersecretary Salvador Enriquez of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to all government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs) with original charters performing proprietary functions to defer payment of the productivity incentive bonus to their employees, pending the issuance of a definite ruling by the Office of the President was disallowed in audit  under Notice of Disallowance No. 96-006-101 (91).  The disallowance was based on COA Decision No. 96-288, dated June 4, 1996, stating that Republic Act No. 6971 does not apply to government-owned or controlled corporations or to government financial institutions with original charters performing proprietary functions, such as the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF)

            In a letter-request made by Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), through its President and Chief Executive Officer, Zorayda  Amelia C. Alonzo, requested for the lifting of the disallowance arguing that the supplemental rules excluding it from coverage was issued after the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) had already granted the productivity incentive bonus to its employees.   But Commission on Audit premises considered, the audit disallowance is hereby affirmed, and to refund  the amount because it did not acquire a vested right over said bonus and they are not entitled to it.

HELD

            A petition is filed alleging that the Commission on Audit acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

            After a careful study, the Court is of the view, and so holds, that contrary to petitioner’s interpretation, the government-owned and controlled corporations had in mind were government-owned and controlled corporations incorporated under the general corporation law. This is so because only workers in private corporations and government-owned and controlled corporations, incorporated under the general corporation law, have the right to bargain (collectively). Those in government corporations with special charter, which are subject to Civil Service Laws, have no right to bargain (collectively), except where the terms and conditions of employment are not fixed by law. Their rights and duties are not comparable with those in the private sector.  The employees of government corporations created by special charters have neither the right to strike nor the right to bargain collectively, as defined in the Labor Code.

           

            Moreover, the DBM advised petitioner herein, HDMF to defer payment of the productivity incentive bonus to their employees, pending the issuance of a definite ruling by the Office of the President on the matter,  therefore, was aware that possibly HDMF may not be covered by Republic Act No. 6971. It should have exercised prudence by waiting the definite ruling on the coverage to prevent legal problems.

            In view of the foregoing, the respondent Commission on Audit did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the audit disallowance.

            WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Respondent Commission on Audit’s Resolution No. 2000-086, dated March 7, 2000, which affirmed COA Decision No. 98-245, dated June 16, 1998, is hereby AFFIRMED.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

III.

LOPEZ V. COA

J. C. LOPEZ & ASSOCIATES INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. NO. 128145, SEPTEMBER 05, 2001

FACTS

            National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR) agreed a contract  for the dredging of the vicinity of the Intake Tower at the Ambuklao Hydroelectric Plant in Bokod, Benguet between JC Lopez & Assoc., Inc.( CONTRACTOR - Petitioner) paid the the amount of P10,125,150.00, as per Disbursement Voucher No. 091-02-853, representing fifteen percent (15%) of the total contract price and subsequently the amount of P7,694,850, as per Disbursement Voucher No. 091-07-861, as the balance of the mobilization cost. After completed the mobilization it started the actual dredging works however, due to the delays incurred by its dredging operations, resulting in substantial slippages in the financial and physical accomplishments, terminated its contract through a Notice of Termination. JC Lopez & Assoc., Inc.( CONTRACTOR - Petitioner) seeking for reconsideration of the termination  was denied by NAPOCOR and ordered to stop its dredging operations for the joint survey to determine the actual volume of silt dredged, revealed that it was able to dredge 167,983.70 cubic meters of silt, amounting to P27,717,310.50.

            NAPOCOR entered into a negotiated contract with a consortium led by Meralco Industrial Engineering Services Corporation (MIESCOR) to rehabilitate, operate and lease back the Ambuklao Hydroelectric Plant.  JC Lopez & Assoc., Inc.(CONTRACTOR - Petitioner) filed a complaint for injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 215, assailing NAPOCOR's termination of its contract, which the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining NAPOCOR and MIESCOR from interfering with dredging operations and from proceeding with the negotiated contract between them.

            Meanwhile, the resident corporate auditor of NAPOCOR, after conducting a post-audit examination of the pertinent transaction, issued a Notice of Suspension involving the advance payment/mobilization fee amounting to P17,820,000.00, paid by NAPOCOR to the CONTRACTOR.  An P18 M mobilization fee which amounted to  26% of the total contract cost. Under PD 1594, the allowed mobilization fee is only 15% of the total contract price. The contract also provided for advance payment in violation of Sec. 88 of PD 1445.  NAPOCOR's explanation having been found substantially insufficient, a notice of suspension of payment ripened into a disallowance of payment, prompting the JC Lopex & Asso., Inc.(CONTRACTOR – Petitioner) to bring the matter before the Commission on Audit, requested for the lifting of the suspension on its claim for advance payment and mobilization fee in the total amount of P17,820,000.00.

HELD

            Whether or not that the Commission on Audit gravely abused its discretion in finding the disallowance of payment in the dredging contract between JC Lopez & Assoc., Inc.(CONTRACTOR – Petitioner) and NAPOCOR is an INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACT under the provisions of PD No. 1594  that limit on advance payments that may be granted.

RULING

            While indeed, as asserted by the petitioner, contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, however, such stipulations should not be contrary to law.^[53] Realizing the need to adopt a comprehensive, uniform, and updated set of policies, guidelines, rules and regulations covering government contracts for infrastructure and other construction projects in order to achieve a more efficient and effective implementation of these projects, Presidential Decree No. 1594 was enacted to prescribe policies, guidelines, rules and regulations for government infrastructure contracts.

            In resumé, as a government infrastructure contract, petitioner's contract with NAPOCOR is subject to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1594 and its implementing rules and regulations.

            WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

            SO ORDERED.