Johanna M. ManzoEna M. Macabatao

Emily F. Rico

Reporters

Respondent:

ALICIA K. PAGADUAN

Complainant:

Comission on Audit

The office of the CSC finds that a prima facie

case exists against ALICIA K. PAGADUAN for

Gross Neglect of Duty, committed as follows:

1. She made cash advances amounting to 77,980.00 for gratuity payments to NVRC clients

2. She has an unliquidated cash advance as of March 31, 2004 and no settlement was made of the said amount.

3. She failed to observed the period for liquidation

4. The liquidation period of Pagaduan’s cash advances was overdue for more than seven hundred ninety days (790)

5. Because of her non- liquidation, the Commission on Audit issued a formal demand letter to Pagaduan to settle her accountabilities within 30 calendar days from receipt of the said demand

6. She failed to liquidate her outstanding cash advances within thirty-day period.

In her answer dated January 3, 2005, Pagaduan

averred the following:

1. that she should not be administratively charged for GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY on account of the following reasons:

a robbery occurred at the Cashier’s Office

whereby one of the stolen items was the

cash intended for gratuity payment of NVRC

clients

she sent a letter to the DSWD-NCR Regional Directorand the Resident Auditor informing them of the saidincident

She sent a letter to DSWD-NCR Regional Director, requesting that she be granted relief from money accountabilities consequential of the robbery incident.

That with the lapse of another two years without said investigation being completed, she received a demand letter from the COA, demanding her to liquidate the said cash advance.

On July 23, 2009, Pagaduan sent aletter to the CSC-NCR requestingthat the case against her for GrossNeglected of Duty be dismissed.

it is clear from the records that she had already settle her cash advance

After evaluating the entire records, the Commission finds nosubstantial evidence to find Pagaduan guilty of theadministrativeoffenseof Gross Neglectof Duty.

DECISIONThe administrative case forGross Neglect of Duty filedagainst Alicia K. Pagaduan,then Cashier II ( now ChiefAdministrative Officer),Finance Division, DSWD-NCR,Manila is hereby DISMISSED.

RESPONDENT:LILIBETH N. RUBA

COMPLAINANT: LAND BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES

• The respondent committed the wrongful acts in 1998 while she was

still a contractual employee hired from the DBP Service Corp. She

was appointed a permanent employee of the Bank on March 1, 1999

as it appears that the Branch management was unaware of her

wrong-doings at that time.

• The act of the Respondent of fraudulently crediting to his father’s

account SSS pension payments when none was due constitutes the

offense of Dishonesty and her forging of the initial of the Branch

Cashier in the Credit Advices to effect the fraudulent crediting

constitutes the offense of Falsification of Official Documents

• The Respondent’s appeal for mercy and that she be meted out the

penalty of Reprimand may not be granted because:

• The offenses of Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents

are both grave offenses punishable byDismissal even if committed

for the first time, as provided in Section 52, Revised Uniform Rules

on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

• The penalty of Dismissal carries with it the forfeiture of retirement

benefits.

Recommendation

Respondent Lilibeth N. Ruba be found guilty of Dishonesty and

Falsification of Official Documents and meted out the penalty of

DISMISSAL with forfeiture of retirement benefits."

In seeking the reversal of the adverse LBP Board Resolutions, Ruba predicates her case on two principal grounds:

1. The LBP Board of Directors gravely abused its discretion when it charged her and eventually found her guilty of acts committed prior to her employment.

2. Similarly, the same Board erred in its avowal of ignorance of prior wrongful acts when it extended a permanent appointment to her.

At the same time, she pleaded

for understanding and

compassion, and throwing

herself at the mercy of the Bank,

as the disciplining authority, she

implored that she be meted a

"merciful sanction, i.e.,

reprimand." She promised never

to do the same thing again.

• Ruba admitted her

complicity,

ratiocinating that what

she did was

occasioned by the financial distress of her family in the wake of the huge expenses attendant to the medical treatment of her sister, who was

allegedly suffering

from congenital

rheumatic heart

disease.

DECISION

• The appeal of Lilibeth N. Ruba is hereby dismissed. The decision of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) subject of the present appeal is sustained in all respects.

• Further, the LBP is directed to institute against Rubacriminal action warranted under the circumstances.

• Let it be emphasized that the authority

to travel, the authority to attend meetings

and conferences and the grant to go on

vacation leave are subjected to the

discretion of the head of the

agency/institution.

• The disapproval of the

travel necessarily means

that the employee is not

allowed to travel or to

leave the work place.

Such is an order for the

employee to stay at the

work place.• To travel on

official Business

and to travel on

official time have

the same effect,

as when one

goes on leave

• That is, one necessarily leaves the work place. When one’s travel is disapproved then he applies for a forced leave, is it not circumventing the very purpose of not allowing one to travel.

• When Ms. Garcia’s authority to travel was disapproved she opted to file an application for leave.

• Necessarily, because to go on travel and to go on leave have the same effect of leaving the work place, such will also be disapproved. Conclusively, Ms. Garcia refused to obey the order for her to stay at the work place.

• MS. DELIA GARCIA is hereby held liable with (sic) the administrative offense of Insubordination. Thus, she is meted the penalty of fine equivalent to one month salary.”

Garcia anchors her appeal on the following

grounds:

1. The Decision was (sic) not supported by sufficient evidence to support (sic) a finding of guilt;

2. The testimony of the witnesses (sic) for the complainant is tainted with bias;

3. Errors of law have been committed prejudicial to the interests (sic) of Respondent-Appellant; and

4. Failure to appreciate the mitigating circumstances in favor of herein Respondent-Appellant.”

The officers and members of the ISUEFA issued

an “Authorization/Resolution” which partly reads,

as follows:

• “In line with the goals and objectives of the ISUE

Faculty Association, we do hereby authorize the

ISUEFA President, Dr. Delia G. Garcia, to attend

the General Assembly of the SUC Faculty

Association Presidents to be held at Cebu Grand

Hotel

• Herein request of Dr. Delia Garcia for her

attendance to said Assembly Meeting (sic) was

earlier forwarded to the ISU Management for

approval. Unfortunately, her travel was

disapproved . . . Therefore, all expenses

incidental to said travel will be shouldered by the

ISU Faculty Association, Echague, Isabela.

(P8620.00 plus P500.00 for membership or

affiliation fee to the National Federation)

• Accordingly, despite the disapproval of her travel

order and application for leave of absence

(forced leave), Garcia was able to attend the

General Assembly of the State Universities and

Colleges Faculty Association Presidents held in

Cebu City on June 9-11, 1997.

• On June 19, 1997, Garcia received a

memorandum from then ISU President Nayga,

directing her to explain within 72 hours from

receipt of the same why no administrative

“action” shall be instituted against her for having

been absent on June 9-11, 1997, without any

approved application for leave.

• The formal investigation

thereafter ensued, and on

May 24, 2000, the CSCRO

No. II issued a decision

finding Garcia guilty of

Insubordination and

imposed upon her the penalty

of fine equivalent to her one

month salary. Garcia moved

for a reconsideration but the

same was denied by the

CSCRO No. II in a decision

dated September 12, 2000.

• As a general rule, approval of leaveapplications is addressed to the sounddiscretion of the head of office who, in the

present case, was Nayga. The exercise of suchdiscretion, however, should not be used as aninstrument to abridge or suppress asubordinate’s right to self-organization.

• Moreover, the Commission has noted that the disapproval of the travel order and application for forced leave of Garcia was not for the best interest of the service.

• Besides, there are ample pieces of evidence in therecords to establish that the disapproval of Garcia’stravel order and application for forced leave was notbased on the perception that her absence would beprejudicial to the best interest of the service. Rather,Nayga disapproved Garcia’s travel order andapplication for forced leave as an act of reprisal for thelatter’s being instrumental, as President of the ISUEFA,in the filing of several graft cases against the formerwith the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office ofthe President (Presidential Commission Against Graftand Corruption). In the latter case, then PresidentJoseph E. Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 93apparently dated November 29, 1999, dismissingNayga from the service after finding him guilty ofviolating Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known asthe Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

• It must also be stressed that no public funds were spent orwasted as a consequence of the travel of Garcia to CebuCity as her travel expenses were paid by the ISUEFA. Butwhat is despicable in the instant case is the fact that Naygaallowed and approved the travel, on official business, ofseveral faculty and staff members of ISU to Cebu Citysupposedly to attend the General Assembly held on June 7-9, 1997, and that all their travel expenses were shoulderedby ISU funds. Vouchers and other pieces of evidencepresented by Garcia clearly showed that Nayga allowed andapproved the travel of these persons despite the fact thatthey are not among those who are qualified toattend said general assembly.

• In fine, it is indubitable that then ISU President

Nayga gravely abused his discretion when he

disapproved the travel order and application for

forced leave of Garcia. As such, Garcia cannot

be faulted if she proceeded to attend the

General Assembly of SUC Faculty Association

Presidents in Cebu City despite the disapproval

of her travel order and/or application for forced

leave. With all of the foregoing disquisition, the

Commission finds no factual and legal basis to

find Garcia guilty of Insubordination.

The appeal of Delia G. Garcia is hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Decisions dated May 24, 2000, and

September 13, 2000, of the Civil Service Commission

Regional Office No. II are REVERSED and SET

ASIDE, and Delia G. Garcia is EXONERATED of the

charge of Insubordination. If Garcia was made to pay

a fine equivalent to her one (1) month salary, it is

ordered that she be restituted said amount.

DECISION