"x x x.
Contrary to the Ombudsman’s submissions, however, Dr. Apolonio is guilty of simple misconduct, not grave misconduct or conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
We disagree with both the CA’s and the Ombudsman’s findings. Instead, we find Dr. Apolonio guilty of simple misconduct.
At the outset, the Court notes that no questions of fact are raised in these proceedings. Both the Ombudsman and Dr. Apolonio concede that the latter appropriated funds intended for the workshop to a purpose other than the one stated and approved by the NBDB. Therefore, the only issue to be determined is whether the purchase of the gift cheques constitutes a grave misconduct or, as found by the CA, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. As already stated, we find Dr. Apolonio guilty of neither, and instead hold her liable for simple misconduct.
In Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma,[49] the Court defined misconduct as “atransgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.” We further stated that misconduct becomes grave if it “involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.”[50] Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple.[51] Therefore, “[a] person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.”[52]
In Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma,[53] respondent was found guilty of simple misconduct by this Court when she accepted amounts meant for the payment of Environmental Compliance Certificates and failed to account for P460.00. The Court noted that “[d]ismissal and forfeiture of benefits, however, are not penalties imposed for all infractions, particularly when it is a first offense.”[54] Despite evidence of misconduct in her case, the Court emphasized that “[t]here must be substantial evidence that grave misconduct or some other grave offense meriting dismissal under the law was committed.”[55]
Further, in Monico K. Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System,[56]the Court considered Imperial’s act of approving the salary loans of eight employees “who lacked the necessary contribution requirements” under GSIS Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 153-99 as simple misconduct. It refused to categorize the act as grave misconduct because no substantial evidence was adduced to prove the elements of “corruption,” “clear intent to violate the law” or “flagrant disregard of established rule” that must be present to characterize the misconduct as grave.
As in the cases of Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma[57] and Imperial, Dr. Apolonio’s use of the funds to purchase the gift cheques cannot be said to be grave misconduct.
First, Dr. Apolonio’s actions were not attended by a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. Although the Court agrees that Dr. Apolonio’s acts contravene the clear provisions of Section 89 of PD 1445, otherwise known as the “Government Auditing Code of the Philippines,” such was not attended by a clear intent to violate the law or a flagrant disregard of established rules.[58] Several circumstances militate in favor of this conclusion.
Dr. Apolonio merely responded to the employees’ clamor to utilize a portion of the workshop budget as a form of Christmas allowance. To ensure that she was not violating any law, Dr. Apolonio even consulted Mr. Montealto, then Finance and Administrative Chief of the NBDB, on the possible legal repercussions of the proposal. Likewise, aside from receiving the same benefit, there is no evidence in the record that Dr. Apolonio unlawfully appropriated in her favor any amount from the approved workshop budget. Therefore, we see no willful intent in Dr. Apolonio’s actions.
x xx."
No comments:
Post a Comment