THIRD
DIVISION
|
FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, REPRESENTED BY
ATTY. MELCHOR ARTHUR H. CARANDANG, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, - versus - J. FERNANDO U. CAMPAÑA, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 173865 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO-MORALES,* CHICO-NAZARIO,
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: August
20, 2008 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -x
Petitioner
Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, Office of the Ombudsman assails in this
instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Decision[1]
dated 27 April 2006 of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution[2]
dated 19 July 2006, which denied the separate Motions for Reconsideration filed
by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in CA-G.R. SP No. 91934. The Court of Appeals modified the Decision of
the Ombudsman in OMB-ADM-0-00-0547.
On
The
uncontested factual antecedents leading to the filing of the charges are
adequately summarized by the Court of Appeals, thus:
On
Subsequently, ECOBEL re-applied for a two year surety bond with the GSIS to guarantee payment of a Ten Million US Dollar loan to be obtained from a foreign creditor with the Philippine Veterans Bank acting as the obligee. ECOBEL’s application was approved in principle “subject to analysis/evaluation of the project and the offered collaterals.” After evaluation by the GSIS Bond Reinsurance Treaty Underwriting Committee, the collateral offered was found to be a second mortgage. Accordingly, the Committee informed ECOBEL of the rejection of the collateral offered but requested for additional collateral.
Meanwhile, Alex M. Valencerina (Valencerina), then Vice-President for Marketing and Support Services, GIG, submitted through a Memorandum dated January 27, 1998, ECOBEL’s bond application for the evaluation and endorsement by the GSIS Investment Committee (INCOM). In the Memorandum, Valencerina made it appear that the payment guarantee bond is fully secured by reinsurance and real estate collaterals and that the principal was given a limited time to avail of the loan from the funder. In [his] Memorandum addressed to the President/General Manager of the GSIS, Amalio Mallari (Mallari) then Senior [V]ice-President of GSIS, GIG, scribbled his own endorsement by stating “Strong reco. Based on info and collaterals herein stated.”
During a meeting on
Meanwhile, Mallari was reassigned to
the Housing and Real Property Development Group under Office Order No. 73-98
dated
Thus, Valencerina prepared three
cancellation notices for the signature of Mallari, but was told that the ECOBEL
surety bond could not be cancelled because it is a “done deal.” Valencerina, upon the request of Mallari,
signed a Certification dated
Another Certification dated March 30, 1998 set forth the “drawing conditions” as follows: (1) presentation of original surety bond to GSIS at its office in Manila or London, together with (2) presentation of a demand payment stating non-payment in full or in part by the Bond Principal; and (3) notification of assignment to GSIS of US Dollar Loan obligations of the Bond Principal.”
Mallari prepared an amended certification and presented it to Valencerina for signature but the latter refused to sign it. Instead, he (Valencerina) instructed Atty. Nora M. Saludares of the Underwriting Department to verify the authenticity of the parcels of land submitted as collaterals by ECOBEL. Based on her report, it appears that the realty covered by TCT No. 66289 was spurious.
Valencerina immediately informed Boright
that Surety Bond No. 029132 is “invalid and unenforceable” and that FEB TCT
Check No. AC00000445, postdated to
[Respondent] Campaña was neither furnished with copies nor informed of the cancellation notices. He did not know that the surety bond had already been cancelled. Thus, he accepted ECOBEL’s premium payment paid in two (2) cheques: one for US$200,629.00 and another for US$129,375.00. However, the second cheque was for the reinsurance premium payable to Transatlantic. Thus, it was “held in abeyance pending receipt of the cover and debit notes in respect of its (Transatlantic’s) 75% share.” (Annex “I”). As the cover and debt notes were not forwarded, the said cheque was not actually paid and later became stale.
It was only on
Based on the FFIB’s report, a criminal case was filed against [respondent] Campaña, Mallari, Valencerina, and Manager Leticia Bernardo for alleged violation of Sec. 3 (e) and (g) of R.A. 3019, as amended, as well as administrative complaint for alleged gross neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.[7]
As can be gathered from the report[8] of
petitioner Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, respondent exercised manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence by issuing a surety bond to Ecobel
Land Incorporated (ECOBEL), which ECOBEL did not deserve; and by entering into
a transaction representing GSIS which was grossly disadvantageous to the latter
since the issuance of the bond was done without ensuring the authenticity of
the title to the collateral posted by ECOBEL, which turned out to be spurious;
hence, the government stands to lose US$9,307,000.00 without the chance of
recovering the same by way of foreclosing said property.[9] There was, likewise, substantial evidence to
show that respondent grossly neglected his duty, and was inefficient and
incompetent in the performance of his official duties.
After due proceedings, the Office of
the Ombudsman rendered a Decision,[10]
dated 27 January 2005, in OMB-ADM-0-00-0547, finding respondent liable for
gross neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official duties. According to the
Ombudsman, respondent Campaña represented to third persons that the bond was
valid and binding as between GSIS and ECOBEL when in fact no premium was paid. Moreover, the Ombudsman faulted respondent Campaña
for accepting the late payments of ECOBEL premium without definitive clearance
from his superiors.[11]
Consequently, respondent Campaña was
found guilty of gross negligence and inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties.
Respondent Campaña was meted the penalty of dismissal from service.[12] On
Respondent Campaña moved for a
reconsideration of the
Thus, respondent Campaña filed with
the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review seeking to annul the Decision and Order
of the Ombudsman, dated
On
However,
the Court of Appeals modified the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman. Instead of meting out the most severe penalty
of dismissal from service against respondent Campaña, the Court of Appeals took
note of his thirty-four (34) years of unblemished record in the government
service. For said reason, the Court of
Appeals found the penalty of suspension from office without pay for one (1)
year as reasonable. It cited Section 16,
Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, which
states that in the determination of penalties to be imposed, mitigating and
aggravating circumstances may be considered.
In reducing the penalty, the Court of Appeals also alluded to Section
53,[19]
Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and
deemed respondent Campaña’s length of service to be mitigating. The Court of Appeals disposed, thus:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated January 27, 2005 of the Preliminary Investigation and Administrative Adjudication Bureau-B as modified by the Honorable Ombudsman on June 8, 2005 finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct and the September 1, 2005 Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration are AFFIRMED subject to the modification that petitioner is SUSPENDED from office without pay for ONE (1) YEAR.[20]
The
Solicitor General and the Ombudsman filed separate Motions for Reconsideration
of the aforesaid Decision, which were denied by the Court of Appeals in its
Resolution[21] dated
Hence,
the instant Petition filed by the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, Office
of the Ombudsman, on the primordial question of the propriety of reducing respondent
Campaña’s penalty of dismissal to suspension for one (1) year without pay.
We
emphasize that this is not the time and place to review respondent Campaña’s
guilt for the administrative offense charged, as that question has been
settled. It is now water under the bridge.
It was petitioner Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau, Office of the
Ombudsman, which elevated the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals questioning
the reduction of penalty. Verily, what
is herein disputed is whether the Court of Appeals correctly mitigated the
administrative penalty originally imposed by the Ombudsman.
Length
of service is an alternative circumstance which can mitigate or possibly even
aggravate the penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case.[22] Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grants the disciplining
authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition
of the proper penalty.[23] The same rule underlines the circumstances
which mitigate the penalty, such as length of service in the government,
physical illness, good faith, education, or other analogous
circumstances. In several cases,[24]
this Court has mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons and considered
respondent’s length of service in the government and his good faith. In several cases, we refrained from imposing
the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service where the
erring employee had not been previously charged with an administrative
offense.[25] In a catena[26]
of cases, this Court has taken into consideration the presence of mitigating circumstances
and lowered the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent.[27]
In
the instant case, we find that the penalty of suspension as reduced by the
Court of Appeals is proper under the circumstances. Considering respondent Campaña’s length of
service of thirty-four (34) years, his unblemished record in the past and the
fact that this is his first offense, the mitigation of his penalty from dismissal
to the penalty of suspension from office without pay for one (1) year is in
accord with law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 91934, dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Justice
Conchita Carpio Morales was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Mariano
C. Del Castillo with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Magdangal
M. De
[2] Rollo, p. 76.
[3] The Sandiganbayan in a Resolution
dated
[4] Respondent’s co-accused were: AMALIO A. MALLARI, then Senior Vice President (SVP) General Insurance Group (GIG), now SVP Housing and Real Property Development Group (HRPDG); ALEX M. VALENCERINA, Vice President (VP), Technical Service Group (TSG), GIG; and LETICIA BERNARDO, then Manager, Surety Department, GIG.
[5] Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. -
In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by
existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage
or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
[6] (g)
Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public
officer profited or will profit thereby.
[7] Rollo, pp. 46-52.
[8] Ombudsman rollo, pp. 2-17.
[9] The charges in the
Complaint-Affidavit, dated
“The Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), Office of the Ombudsman xxx hereby files these criminal and administrative complaints before the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB), and the Administrative Adjudication Bureau (AAB), respectively, against the following public officials of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS):
x x x x
3. FERNANDO U. CAMPANA, VP, London Representative Office, International Operations, GIG
x x x x
- for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act 3019 in relation to GSIS Policy and Procedural Guidelines Nos. 64-80 and 16076 (VII, VIII and XIII BB), in connection with: (1) giving of unwarranted benefit advantage or preference by the said GSIS officials to ECOBEL thru manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, by issuing to ECOBEL the surety bond at issue to which it does not deserve and thereafter make BEAR STEARNS as obligee without ensuring the existence of a valid and existing agreement between ECOBEL and [Philippine Veterans Bank] PVB; and (2) entering into a transaction representing GSIS which is grossly disadvantageous to the latter since in the issuance of the bond, without ensuring the authenticity of the title of the collateral posted by ECOBEL which turned out to be spurious, the government stands to lose US$ 9,307,000.00 without the chance of recovering the same by way of foreclosing the said property,
-and-
for violation of Sec. 22 (b), (p) of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, for Gross Neglect of Duty, and Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties.
[10] Ombudsman rollo, pp. 315-346.
[11]
[12] The dispositive portion of the
Decision of the Ombudsman, dated
WHEREFORE, consistent with CSC Resolution No. 991936 or the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases that this Office adheres to and applies in the disposition of administrative complaints, we find the liabilities and the corresponding penalties of the following respondents as follows:
Amalio A. Mallari is found liable for simple neglect of duty, and inefficiency and incompetence for which the penalty of one year suspension without pay is meted, applying Section 55 of the Uniform Rules;
Alex M. Valencerina and Fernando U. Campaña are both found liable for gross neglect of duty, and inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. Gross neglect of duty being the more serious offense, the penalty of dismissal from the service is hereby imposed.
The corresponding disabilities and accessories to administrative penalties provided for in Sections 57 to 58 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative cases also attaches.
The charges against Leticia Bernardo are dismissed. (Rollo, pp. 145-146.)
[13] Ombudsman rollo, pp. 347-349.
[14] The Order dated
WHEREFORE,
the
1.
Respondents ALEX M. VALENCERINA, AMALIO A. MALLARI, and FERNARDO U. CAMPA[Ñ]A
are hereby held GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and, thus, meted the penalty of
DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, together with all its accessory
penalties/disabilities as provided in Sections 57-58 of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases;
2. As
to respondent LETICIA BERNARDO, the resolution of the instant case is hereby
held in abeyance. PAMO is hereby
directed to conduct further proceedings against her upon service of the
subpoena and copy of the complaint-affidavit on her; and
3.
PAMO is also hereby ordered to direct ASP III Louella Mae Oco-Pesquera, by way
of subpoena duces tecum, to submit certified
true copies of the records of Crim. Case No. 27474 relating to the
re-evaluation/reinvestigation previously conducted by her. (Rollo, pp. 150-151.)
[15] Ombudsman rollo, pp. 456-473.
[16]
[17] Rollo,
p. 67.
[18]
[19] SEC. 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating or Alternative Circumstances. – In the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered.
The following circumstances shall be appreciated:
x x x x
J. Length of service in the government
x x x x
L. Other analogous circumstances.
[20] Rollo,
p. 74.
[21]
[22] Gonzales
v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 156253, 15 June 2006, 490 SCRA 741,
749; CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19-99, Rule IV, Section 53 (J) recognizes
length of service in the government as a mitigating circumstance.
[23] Re:
Failure of Jose Dante E. Guerrero to Register His Time In and Out in
the Chronolog Time Recorder Machine on Several Dates, A.M. No.
2005-07-SC, 19 April 2006, 487 SCRA 352, 367.
[24] In Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division (A.M. No. 2001-7-SC & 2001-8-SC, 22 July 2005, 464 SCRA 1, 18-19) in which therein respondents were found guilty of dishonesty, the Court, for humanitarian considerations, in addition to various mitigating circumstances in respondents’ favor, meted out a penalty of six months’ suspension instead of imposing the most severe penalty of dismissal from service. In imposing a lower penalty, the court, for humanitarian considerations, took note of various mitigating circumstances in respondents’ favor, to wit: (1) for respondent ANGELITA C. ESMERIO: her continued long years of service in the judiciary amounting to 38 years; her faithful observance of office rules and regulations from the time she submitted her explanation-letter up to the present; her acknowledgment of her infractions and feelings of remorse; her retirement on 31 May 2005; and her family circumstances (i.e., support of a 73-year-old maiden aunt and a 7-year-old adopted girl); and (2) for ELIZABETH L. TING: her continued long years of service in the judiciary amounting to 21 years; her acknowledgment of her infractions and feelings of remorse; the importance and complexity of the nature of her duties (i.e., the preparation of the drafts of the Minutes of the Agenda); the fact that she stayed well beyond office hours in order to finish her duties; and her Performance Rating had always been “Very Satisfactory” and her total score of 42 points was the highest among the employees of the Third Division of the Court.
In Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr. (A.M. No. P-99-1342, 20 September 2005, 470 SCRA 218, 222-223), the penalty of dismissal was reduced by the Court to six months suspension without pay for the attendant equitable and humanitarian considerations therein: Norberto V. Doblada, Jr. had spent 34 years of his life in government service and he was about to retire; this was the first time that he was found administratively liable per available record; Doblada, Jr. and his wife were suffering from various illnesses that required constant medication, and they were relying on Doblada’s retirement benefits to augment their finances and to meet their medical bills and expenses.
In Buntag v. Paña (G.R. No. 145564, 24 March 2006, 485 SCRA 302, 307), the Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Ombudsman when they took into consideration Corazon G. Buntag’s length of service in the government and the fact that this was her first infraction. Thus, the penalty of dismissal for Falsification of Official Document was reduced to merely one year suspension.
In Re: Imposition of Corresponding Penalties for Habitual Tardiness Committed During the First and Second Semester of 2003 by the Following Employees of this Court: Gerardo H. Alumbro, (469 Phil. 534, 547 [2004]), Susan Belando, Human Resource Management Assistant of the Employees Welfare and Benefit Division, OCA, was found to be habitually tardy for the third time. A strict application of the rules would have justified her dismissal from the service. However, for humanitarian reasons, she was only meted the penalty of suspension for 30 days with a warning that she would be dismissed from the service if she would commit the same offense in the future. She, subsequently, incurred habitual tardiness for the fourth time. However, again, for humanitarian reasons, the Court found the penalty of suspension for three months without pay to be appropriate.
[25] Concerned
Employee v. Valentin, A.M. No. 2005-01-SC,
[26] See Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, 3 June 2004, 430
SCRA 593, 604, citing Marasigan v. Buena,
348 Phil. 1 (1998); Office of the Court
Administrator v. Ibay, 441 Phil. 474, 479 (2002); Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, 457 Phil. 42, 48-49 (2003).
[27] The Court in Buntag v. Paña, supra note 24, enumerated recent cases in which the Court took into consideration the mitigating circumstances present and reduced the imposable penalty of dismissal to suspension from service, to wit:
In Civil Service Commission v. Belagan (G.R.
No. 132164, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 578, 601), the respondent, who was
charged with sexual harassment `and found guilty of Grave Misconduct, was meted
out the penalty of suspension from office without pay for one year, given the
respondent’s length of service, unblemished record in the past and numerous
awards.
In Vidallon-Magtolis
v. Salud (A.M. No. CA-05-20-P,
In De Guzman,
Jr. v.