Maria Teresa B. Saligumba Vs. Commission on Audit XIII, represented by Cheryl Cantalejo-Dime and Teodora J. Beniga G.R. No. 238643. September 8, 2020

Maria Teresa B. Saligumba Vs. Commission on Audit XIII, represented by Cheryl Cantalejo-Dime and Teodora J. Beniga is part of the List of SC Decisions of the Supreme Court.

Case Details

 * Maria Teresa B. Saligumba Vs. Commission on Audit XIII, represented by Cheryl Cantalejo-Dime and Teodora J. Beniga
 * G.R. No. 238643.
 * Peralta
 * https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66388
 * Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty

Issues
[1]    What are the rudiments of procedural due process? Was petitioner accorded the same in the course of the Formal Investigation proceedings conducted? Was the filing of pleadings without considering the evidence and arguments raised therein, constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirements of due process? [2]    Is the immediate implementation of the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative case, even before petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration and subsequent appeal, proper and justifiable? [3]    What are the elements in Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty? Are these elements attendant to the charges against petitioner? [4]    Is petitioner entitled to the mitigating circumstances owing to her length of service, her being a first-time offender, very satisfactory performance and good moral character? Grave Misconduct was committed when Saligumba failed to keep and account for cash and cash items in her custody. Her corrupt intention was apparent from her failure to give a satisfactory explanation as to what happened to the missing public funds despite reasonable opportunity to do the same. At the very least, the act of issuing official receipts and making it appear that the supposed payee remitted funds when no such funds were received constitutes the crime of falsification of public documents committed by a public officer, punishable under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Saligumba claims that she was well aware of the repercussions of her act but she, nonetheless, issued the official receipts without the corresponding funds being remitted to the coffers of the Municipal Government of Barobo because she did not want to incur the ire of Municipal Mayor Ronquillo. Her compliance with a patently illegal order, without any written objection, clearly demonstrated her intention to violate the law, and her flagrant disregard of the accounting and auditing rules and regulations. Due process is complied with "if the party who is properly notified of allegations against him or her is given an opportunity to defend himself or herself against those allegations, and such defense was considered by the tribunal in arriving at its own independent conclusions." An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. In order that the foregoing rule may be strictly observed, all concerned are hereby enjoined to implement all Ombudsman decisions, orders or resolutions in administrative disciplinary cases, immediately upon receipt thereof by their respective offices. The filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review before the Office of the Ombudsman does not operate to stay the immediate implementation of the foregoing Ombudsman decisions, orders or resolutions.

Info
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 17, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 08014-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED.