G.R. No. 203005 - TABUK MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC. (TAMPCO), JOSEPHINE DOCTOR, AND WILLIAM BAO-ANGAN, VS. MAGDALENA DUCLAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the same was changed by Mrs. Brenda Falgui, or that a substitute check was issued by Mrs. Falgui. She [had a] conflicting statement before the Board when she stated that the amount belongs to Juliet's account. CONCLUSION: There was indeed an error, mistake, negligence or abuse of discretion that transpired in the grant of the special investment loans, x x x [T]here are violations of the policies or Board actions which should be dealt with[.] x x x. RECOMMENDATIONS: AS TO THE ACCOUNTABILITY x x x x Mrs. Magdalena Duclan The committee recommended that she will be immediately suspended without pay and for her to collect the SIL she [had] released even without the loan note and for her to account [for] or pay the missing value of the check bearing no. 00115533 in the amount of P1,500,000.00 [by] Dec. 31, 2004. [For failure] to collect or account/pay [by then she] shall be [dismissed] from service with forfeiture of all benefits. She violated policies and Board actions, specially 28 and 55 in relation to the manual. [13] On November 6, 2004. the BOD adopted the report of the committee and ordered that respondent be suspended from November 8 until December 31, 2004; respondent was likewise directed to collect, within the said period, the unauthorized SIL releases she made, otherwise she would be terminated from employment. [14] Unable to collect or account for the P1.5 million as required, respondent was dismissed from employment. Thus, in a February 1, 2005 communication, [15] TAMPCO wrote: Anent your letter dated January 26, 2005, reiterating your plea for a reconsideration of your suspension for the reason that you were suspended twice on different days for the commission of the same offense, the following quoted paragraph was lifted from lines 339 through 350 of the minutes of the regular meeting of the TAMPCO BOD held on November 27, 2004, treating the matter of your concern for your information, to wit: " x x x CEO Sarmiento and Cashier Duclan [requested] reconsideration of their suspension pointing out that they are being suspended twice for the same offense, The Board denied the request, clarifying that the basis for the second suspension is the discovery of the release of cash to the SIL recipient without first accomplishing the corresponding loan note and which action is. contrary to the established processes. It was mentioned that such violation is punishable by outright dismissal but the policy was humanized with the imposition only of suspension to the violators to give them ample time to collect the unauthorized disbursement. x x x [The first] suspension was lifted because their services were urgently needed in the distribution of dividends and patronage refunds. The Board decided to stand by its decision based on the recommendation of the fact-finding committee. " [For] failure to comply with the tasks required x x x within the effectivity period of your suspension as set under Office Orders numbered 001-04 and 002-04, both