G.R. No. 168079 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND MA. MELLY JAUD MAGBANUA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent MA. MELLY JAUD MAGBANUA be meted the penalty of SUSPENSION for SIX (6) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY for NEGLECT OF DUTY. For having been found guilty of DISHONESTY, respondent MONIN[]A BAJA is meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE WITH FORFEITURE OF ALL BENEFITS AND DISQUALIFICATION TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE. [4] Petitioner reviewed the Decision of the Ombudsman Visayas. In a Memorandum dated 6 June 2000, [5] petitioner imposed upon both respondent and Baja the penalty of dismissal from the service, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, and upon finding that respondent MA. MELLY JAUD MAGBANUA GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY and for VIOLATIONS OF REASONABLE OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS and respondent MONINA BAJA GUILTY OF DISHONESTY, they are both meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from service pursuant to the provisions of Section 22(b) and (a), respectively, of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. The penalty prescribed under Section 22(c), a lesser offense, is deemed absorbed in a much graver offense. Accordingly, the herein reviewed Decision dated May 3, 2000 of GIO Corazon C. Arnado-Carrillo is hereby MODIFIED insofar as the recommended penalty of respondent MAGBANUA is concerned. [6] Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. In an Order dated 28 May 2002, [7] petitioner denied the motion. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals found that petitioner did not commit any reversible error in finding respondent guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. The Court of Appeals ruled that respondent was an accountable officer. On the other hand, Baja was not officially designated as Disbursing Officer or Paymaster but was merely assigned to "take charge of the listing of payrolls and vouchers to be included in the respective cash advances of disbursing officers." The Court of Appeals sustained petitioner in finding that respondent was grossly remiss in her obligations as an accountable officer when she allowed Baja to release payroll funds which formed part of her own cash advance. In addition, respondent allowed Baja to prepare the necessary disbursement and liquidation reports which respondent should have prepared herself. The Court of Appeals ruled that respondent did not even review or examine the reports prepared by Baja. However, the Court of Appeals ruled that while petitioner's findings were correct, petitioner has no power to impose directly sanctions against government officials and employees who are subject of its investigation. Citing Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman, [8] the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner's power is limited and it may only recommend, not impose, the appropriate sanctions. Petitioner challenges before this Court the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The Issues The sole issue in this case is whether the Office of the Ombudsman