EN BANC
G.R. No. 230524, September 01, 2020
ATTY. NORBERTO DABILBIL CABIBIHAN, PETITIONER, V. DIOSDADO JOSE M. ALLADO, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS), AND REYNALDO A. VILLAR, AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
The present Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to reverse and set aside, or modify the May 31, 2016 Decision2 and February 27, 2017 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138034 and 138084, which affirmed the August 26, 2014 Decision No. 1406824 and October 28, 2014 Resolution No. 14015505 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Subsequently, Chairman Villar issued separate Letter Charges to petitioner and other COA-MWSS personnel. The relevant portions of the Letter11 dated July 30, 2010, wherein petitioner was formally charged, is reproduced hereunder: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Name Acts Committed Amount Offenses Charged 1. [Petitioner] 1. Receiving and/or directing his staff to receive unauthorized allowances from the cash advances of [Mendoza]2. Availing of the Car Assistance Plan of the MWSS Employees Welfare Fund ([CAP-]MEWF)3. Receiving Bids and Awards Committee honoraria
4. Availing of the MWSS Housing Project P9,182,038.00
P1,200,000.00
P27,000.00P419,005.40 (excluding house construction amounting to P393,936.65) Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations 2. Efren D. Ayson 1. Receiving unauthorized allowances from cash advances of [Mendoza]
2. Availing of the [CAP-MEWF] P388,326.00
P500,000.00 Grave Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations 3. Lilia V. Ronquillo 1. Receiving unauthorized allowances from the cash advances of [Mendoza]
2. Availing of the [CAP-MEWF] P656,566.00
P600,000.00 Grave Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations 4. Vilma A. Tiongson 1. Receiving unauthorized allowances from the cash advances of [Mendoza]
2. Availing of the [CAP-MEWF] P1,448,745.00
P600,000.00 Grave Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations 5. Pacita Velasquez 1. Receiving unauthorized allowances from the cash advances of [Mendoza]
2. Receiving Benefits and/or bonuses from MWSS covering the period 1999 to 2003
3. Availing of the [CAP-MEWF] P630,000.00
P93,627.50
P500,000.00 Grave Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations 6. Godofredo Villegas 1. Availing of the [CAP-MEWF] P600,000.00 Grave Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations
Dear [Petitioner]:In his Answer12 , petitioner claimed that there was complete dearth of evidence to incriminate him and that the administrative case was a form of harassment and a mere retaliatory response to his audit findings against MWSS.
The result of the investigation by the Team from the Fraud FAIO[-LSS] on the complaint against you and COA-MWSS staff disclosed that you committed the following reprehensible actions:x x x x
- Receiving and/or directing your staff to receive unauthorized allowances from the cash advances [CAs] of [Mendoza] in the total amount of P9,182,038.00;
- Availing of the [CAP-MEWF] amounting to P1,200,000.00;
- Receiving Bids and Awards Committee honoraria in the total amount of P27,000.00; and
- Availing of the MWSS Housing Project valued at P419,005.40 excluding house construction amounting to P393,936.65.
WHEREFORE, you are hereby formally charged x x x and required to submit x x x your answer in writing and under oath, within five (5) days from receipt hereof[.]
x x x x
Very truly yours, (sgd.) REYNALDO A. VILLAR Chairman
WHEREFORE, this Commission hereby finds [petitioner] GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. Accordingly, and in view of his retirement from the service, the penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office are meted upon him. He shall likewise refund the amounts he received from the CAs of [Mendoza], the BAC honorarium, and the amount paid by the MEWF for his car loan.The COA ruled that the allegations against petitioner were duly proven by substantial evidence.
x x x x14
WHEREFORE, the Appeals of [petitioner] x x x are DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision x x x rendered by the [COA] x x x is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in the sense that he is only liable for the offenses of Grave Misconduct Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. In addition, he is ordered to refund only the amount he received as BAC Honorarium in the amount of P27,000.00 and the amount paid by the [MEWF] for his car loan to the extent of the fringe benefit of P720,000.00 except the amount of P9,182,038.00 which was not substantiated. In view of his retirement from the service, however, the penalty of dismissal from the service is deemed imposed. [Petitioner] is also ordered to refund the amount received from the [CAs] of [Mendoza] amount to P694,659.00.Thereafter, in its Resolution18 dated October 28, 2014, the CSC partly granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner and recalled the directive requiring the latter to reflind the amount he received from the CA of Mendoza in the amount of P694,659.00. The CSC clarified that the prosecution failed to prove that, indeed, petitioner received any of the unauthorized allowances from the CAs of Mendoza.
x x x x17
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions for review are DENIED. The August 26, 2014 Decision No. 140682 and October 28, 2014 Resolution No. 1401550 of the [CSC] are hereby AFFIRMED.Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration21 was denied in a Resolution22 dated February 27, 2017.
SO ORDERED.20
Section 18. Additional Compensation of Commission on Audit Personnel and of Other Agencies. - In order to preserve the independence and integrity of the Commission on Audit (COA), its officials and employees are prohibited from receiving salaries, honoraria, bonuses, allowances or other emoluments from any government entity, local government unit, and government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial institution, except those compensation paid directly be the COA out of its appropriations and contributions.On September 22, 1999, COA issued Memorandum No. 99-066 implementing R.A. 6758 and restating the policy against the receipt by auditing personnel of honorarium, allowance, bonus or other emolument as a form of fringe benefit or additional compensation.
Government entities, including government-owned or controlled corporations including financial institutions and local government units are hereby prohibited from assessing or billing other government entities, government-owned or controlled corporations including financial institutions or local government units for services rendered by its officials and employees as part of their regular functions for purposes of paying additional compensation to said officials and employees.
Indeed, there are valid reasons to treat COA officials differently from other national government officials. The primary function of an auditor is to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures of government funds. To be able properly to perform their constitutional mandate, COA officials need to be insulated from unwarranted influences, so that they can act with independence and integrity. As extensively discussed in Tejada v. Domingo, the prohibition, under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6758 was designed precisely to serve this purpose. The removal of the temptation and enticement the extra emoluments may provide is designed to be an effective way of vigorously and aggressively enforcing the Constitutional provision mandating the COA to prevent or disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.Definitely, petitioner, a State Auditor at the time material to the case, was disqualified from receiving or availing of MWSS benefits.
Stated otherwise, the COA personnel who have nothing to look forward to or expect from their assigned offices in terms of extra benefits, would have no reason to accord special treatment to the latter by closing their eyes to irregular or unlawful expenditures or use of fluids or property, or conducting a perfunctory audit. The law realizes that such extra benefits could diminish the personnel's seriousness and dedication in the pursuit of their assigned tasks, affect their impartiality and provide a continuing temptation to ingratiate themselves to the government entity, local government unit, government-owned and controlled corporations and government financial institutions, as the case may be. In the end then, they would become ineffective auditors.
In common usage, the term good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious. In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, a person's intention can be ascertained by relying not on his own protestations of good faith, which is self-serving, but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts. (citations omitted)And, as the CSC correctly stated, petitioner's claim of good faith is belied by his being a lawyer and knowing fully well that he is benefited in the amount of P720,000.00 without any consideration.28 To recall, the total amount of the car loan, as stipulated in petitioner's Car Loan Contract,29 was P1,200,000.00 to be paid in equal monthly installments for a period of 48 months. But, upon review of the documentary evidence specifically, the 12 post-dated checks issued by petitioner, both the COA and CSC found that petitioner paid only P10,000.00 for his monthly amortization or the equivalent of 40% of the total purchase price (i.e. P480,000.00).30 Thus, the Court is convinced that petitioner could not have been in good faith when he availed of the CAP-MEWF.
Equally telling are the PNB Check Nos. 202818, 021048, and 021275 recorded in the MWSS Claims Control and Check Register and payable to the order of [petitioner] which point to no other conclusion that he actually received BAC Honorarium of P9,000.00 for the months of March, June, and July 2006 or a total of P27,000.00. Contrary to [petitioner]'s postulate that payment of the checks [was] never proven, the dorsal portion of PNB Check No. [021048] shows the written words: "NORBERTO CABIBIHAN; COA, MWSS, QC; and Acct. No. 1697-0137-13" followed by machined printed numerical figures in the words "Land Bank of the Philippines". Hence, it was incumbent upon [petitioner] to show that Acct. No. 1697-0137-13 does not belong to him rather than for the COA or CSC to prove the ownership of the same. Similarly, on the dorsal portions of PNB Check Nos. 202818 and [021275] are signatures that find semblance to [petitioner]'s signature on his motion for reconsideration of the COA's January 29, 2013 Decision No. 2013-001 and on the PNB checks he issued for the monthly amortization of his car loan.34Third. The Court, as did the CA, finds that petitioner was, in fact, an awardee of the MWSS Housing Project located in La Mesa Heights, Greater Lagro, Novaliches, Quezon City. The following documentary evidence confirms petitioner's ownership thereof: 1) List of Lot Awardees indicating that petitioner was awarded Lot Nos. 11 and 12; 2) Demand Letter dated September 7, 2005 requiring petitioner to settle his obligation as an awardee in the amount of P419,005.40; and 3) Official Receipt dated April 7, 2010 showing that petitioner paid P146,000 as payment for the said lots. Granting that petitioner already conveyed ownership to Elefante, the Court agrees that such "act is considered as an afterthought knowing that he will eventually face charges as a consequence of his act"35 and only "bolsters the fact that [petitioner] was the actual original awardee of the two (2) lots in the MWSS Housing Project."36
Nacion's availment of the housing and car programs was undisputed. She claimed though to have availed of these benefits upon an honest belief that she was not prohibited from doing so. Her alleged good faith, nonetheless, could not support exoneration.All told, the Court holds that petitioner's guilt in the present administrative case has been substantially proven.
x x x x
An observance of the prohibition is mandatory given its purpose vis-a-vis the roles which COA personnel are required to perform. Given their mandate to look after compliance with laws and standards in the handling of funds by the government agencies where they are assigned to, COA personnel must prevent any act mat may influence them in the discharge of their duties. In the present case, the receipt of the subject benefits and allowances was evidently in violation of the prohibition under the aforequoted Section 18. Nacion should have been wary of her actions and the prohibitions pertinent to her functions, especially as they affected the expenditure of MWSS funds which she was duty-bound to eventually examine.
Very truly yours, (SGD) EDGAR O. ARICHETA Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 28-57.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda (now a member of the Court), concurring; rollo, pp. 596-616.
3 Id. at 642-644.
4 Signed by Chairman Francisco T. Daque III and Commissioners Nieves L. Osorio and Robert S. Martinez; rollo, pp. 236-254.
5 Id. at 474-484.
6 Id. at 118.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Submitted by Special Investigator IV Maribel U. De Vera and State Auditor II Emerlinda C. Feliciano, and reviewed by Attorney VI Alexander B. Juliano; id. at 58-70.
10 Id. at 242-244.
11 Id. at 71-72.
12 Id. at 73-86.
13 Signed by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan and Commissioners Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Heidi L. Mendoza, id. at 117-146.
14 Id. at 144.
15 Id. at 147-167.
16 Id. at 168-171.
17 Id. at 253.
18 Supra note 5.
19Rollo, p. 610.
20 Id. at 616.
21 Id. at 619-629.
22 Id. at 642-644.
23 Section 4, R.A. No. 6758; See also Mendoza v. COA, 717 Phil. 491, 524 (2013).
24 455 Phil. 908 (2003).
25Rollo, p. 11.
26 Re: Valderoso, 781 Phil. 22 (2016).
27 796 Phil. 162 (2016).
28Rollo, p. 249.
29 Id. at 727-730.
30 P10,000.00 x 48 months.
31Section 13. Observers - To enhance the transparency of the process, the BAC shall, in all stages of the procurement process, invite, in addition to the representative of the Commission on Audit, at least two (2) observers to sit in its proceedings, one (1) from a duly recognized private group in a sector or discipline relevant to the procurement at hand, and the other from a non-government organization: Provided, however, That they do not have any direct or indirect interest in the contract to be bid out. The observers should be duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and should meet the criteria for observers as set forth in the IRR.
32Section 15. Honoraria of BAC Members - The Procuring Entity may grant payment of honoraria to the BAC members in an amount not to exceed twenty five percent (25%) of their respective basic monthly salary subject to availability of funds. For this purpose, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) shall promulgate the necessary guidelines.
33 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MODERNIZATION, STANDARDIZATION AND REGULATION OF THE PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
34 Id. at 612.
35Rollo, p. 251.
36 Id. at 611.
37 803 Phil. 65 (2017).
38 756 Phil. 62 (2015).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary