G.R. No. 222998 - ATTY. ALDO P. TURIANO, VS. TASK FORCE ABONO, FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE (FIO) OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY LEONARDO R. NICOLAS, JR.. DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence against Aida V . Estonido, Atty. Aldo Turiano, and Edwin S. Lapuz for the administrative offenses of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, they are hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, with its accessory penalties. In the event that the penalty of Dismissal can no longer be enforced due to respondent 's separation from the service, the same shall be converted into a Fine in the amount equivalent to respondent's salary for one (1) year, payable to the ofTice of the Ombudsman, and may be deductible from respondent's retirement benefits, accrued leave credits, or any receivable from his/her office. It shall be understood that the accessory penalties attached to the principal penalty of Dismissal shall continue to be imposed. The case against respondents Jean A. Bongon, Jessie S. Abonite, Jose B. Cabanes, Amparo M. Olasa, Melchor J. Nacario and Fernando S. Berina, Jr. is DISMISSED. Pursuant to Section 7, Administrative Order No. 1 7 of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of 2006, the Honorable Mayor of the City of Iriga is hereby directed to implement this Decision and to submit promptly a Compliance Report within five (5) days from receipt indicating the OMB case number: OMB­ C-A-11-0446-G , to this Office, thru the Central Records Division, 2 nd Floor, Ombudsman Building, Agham Road, Government Center, North Triangle, Diliman, 1128 Quezon City. Compliance is respectfully enjoined consistent with Section 15(3) of R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989). SO ORDERED . [14] With respect to Turiano, the Ombudsman held that his knowledge of and participation in the anomalous transaction is evidenced by his signatures in the two unnumbered and undated Acceptance and Inspection Reports. These documents confirmed that all 789 liters/bottles of"Young Magic Foliar Fertilizer" were delivered to, and accepted by, Iriga City in one instance, despite the indication in Disbursement Voucher No. 100-04-04-1 045-B that only 514 liters/bottles of said fertilizer were initially ordered and delivered .[15] Turiano sought reconsideration of the above Decision by filing a Verified Motion for Reconsideration dated July 14, 2014, and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated July 22, 2014. [16] Both motions, however, were denied by the Ombudsman in its Order 17 dated August 13, 2014. In the said Order, the Ombudsman rejected Turiano's arguments that it is his ministerial duty to sign the Acceptance and Inspection Reports and that he should not be faulted if the corresponding disbursement vouchers were erroneous. If at all, as held by the Ombudsman, these only highlighted the illegality of the transaction: x x x Assuming arguendo that 789 liters/bottles of fertilizers were in fact delivered and DV No. [100-04-04-]1 045-B was wrongly prepared, he nevertheless signed check No. 257277 dated 30 April 2004, which authoriz