G.R. NO. 166116 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, VS. FLORENTINA SANTOS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, respondent SANTOS appears to be liable for violation of Republic Act No. 6713. The respondent was also accused of having misappropriated government property. On this point, Sophia Amparo, janitress, Lagro Elementary School, testified x x x x It is clear from the foregoing that at the instance of the respondent, several galvanized iron sheets which appear to be the property of the government were taken out of Lagro Elementary School and delivered to the residence of the respondent. The respondent then presented her witnesses, namely: JOSE SABALILAG and BENEDICT GUANTERO, to rebut the allegation of theft, however, the same proved insufficient to counter the evidence against her. x x x It is therefore clear from the testimony of JOSE SABALILAG that at least eight (8) galvanized iron sheets (which were purportedly new) were taken by the respondent and which remain unaccounted for. This bolsters the finding that the respondent was responsible for having taken several galvanized iron sheets which were government property. With respect to BENEDICT GUANTERO, a witness for the respondent, the basis for his testimony, which is a purported Affidavit was not formally offered as evidence in the present case. Hence, the allegations therein can not be possibly considered in the resolution of the instant case. All told, it has been substantially established that the respondent took government property for her own personal benefit which constitutes Grave Misconduct, and for which the respondent may be held liable. ( citations omitted ) [24] As a general rule, factual findings of administrative bodies are accorded great respect by this Court. We do not see any reason to depart from this policy, except as regards respondent's liability for holding the position of President/Chairman of the Board of Golden Child Montessori and managing the affairs of said school. Contrary to the Ombudsman's ruling that such act does not violate any provision of law, Section 7 (b) (2) of R.A. 6713 prohibits all public officials and employees from engaging in the private practice of their profession, thus: SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions . In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: (1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law; (2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or (3)