Castro v. Bureau of Internal Revenue

EIGHTH (8TH) DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP NO. 134437. October 8, 2015.] MA. ALMA QUINTOS y CASTRO , petitioner , vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE , respondent. DECISION SALANDANAN-MANAHAN, C. , J p : The Case Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court , assailing the following issuances of the Civil Service Commission: 1. Decision No. 131095 1 promulgated on November 12, 2013 finding the petitioner guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Gross Neglect of Duty and meting her the penalty of dismissal from the service with all the accessory penalties of cancellation of Civil Service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except terminal leave benefits and personal contributions in the GSIS), perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking Civil Service Examinations; and 2. Resolution No. 1400247 2 promulgated on February 18, 2014 denying the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. 3 The Facts The case stemmed from the loss of the payroll money due to burglary which was discovered in the early morning of November 21, 2001 by Yolanda Berania and Sarah Dolina, both employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue assigned in the Cashiering Unit of the Administrative Division of RR No. 6, Manila. The records show that on November 20, 2001 at around 1:30 in the afternoon, the petitioner, Head of the Cashiering Unit together with Sarah Dolina went to Landbank, Intramuros, Manila to encash the fourteen (14) checks representing the Christmas Bonuses of the revenue personnel of the said Revenue Regional office. Upon returning to the Cashier's Office at 2:15 p.m., petitioner requested Yolanda S. Berania, Ma. Concepcion Malinao, and Sarah Dolina to assist her in the sorting and placing of the cash bonuses in the pay envelopes of the revenue employees. They finished at 4:00 p.m. Some employees who were then waiting outside the Cashiering Units were able to receive their bonuses that afternoon. The distribution of the pay envelopes stopped at 5:00 p.m. The undistributed bonuses and cash gifts in the amount of P5,017,221.25 were kept inside the steel cabinet. CAIHTE The following day, at around 8:10 a.m., Sarah Dolina and Yolanda Berania discovered that the pay envelopes which they filled with cash the other day were already empty and the cash money have disappeared. When petitioner was informed of the burglary incident, she immediately reported the matter to the Office of the Regional Director and to the Police. Consequently, Ma. Concepcion E. Malinao, Yolanda S. Berania, Sarah A. Dolina, and the petitioner, all of the Cashiering Unit and Hermania Cedeno, Chief of the Administrative Division, were individually charged with Gross Neglect of Duty. On March 14, 2002, a Formal Charge 4 was issued against the petitioner for the offense of Gross Neglect of Duty. The offense was committed as follows: "That as Head of the Cashiering Unit of the Administrative Division, Revenue Region No. 6, Manila, you failed to exercise due diligence and care required in the custody of payroll money when on November 20, 2001, you kept inside the steel filing cabinet assigned in your unit, despite your knowledge that it was defective and needed repair, the undistributed payroll money in the total amount of P5,017,221.25, representing unclaimed Christmas bonuses, salaries of employees for November 1-15, 2001, and other emoluments; and that you also failed to request a security guard to man and secure your office on the night of said date, resulting in the loss of said amount which was discovered in the early morning of November 21, 2001, to the damage and prejudice of the revenue service ." 5 In her Answer to the Formal Charge of Gross Neglect of Duty , 6 the petitioner averred that the Cashiering Unit is a unit of the Administrative Division of Revenue Region No. 6, Manila, which holds office in one of the rooms inside the room occupied by the Administrative Division, on the 6th Floor of the BIR Building in Port Area, Manila. The room occupied by the unit is well built and surrounded by walls from the floor to the ceiling. It has only one door which is used for entrance and exit and is secured by a big chain and padlock. The main door of the office of the Administrative Division is secured by a big chain and padlock. The Cashiering Unit is only provided with one (1) steel filing cabinet used for safekeeping of payroll money, checks, and other accountable items. The other cabinets in the Cashiering Unit room are unserviceable and out of order. Sometime in the late October 2001, it was discovered that the steel filing cabinet which is being used by the Cashiering Unit for safekeeping was malfunctioning. The petitioner and the other staff of the Unit namely: Yolanda Berania, Sarah Dolino, and Ma. Concepcion Malinao, immediately reported the matter to Mrs. Herminia Cedeno, Chief of the Administrative Division, and they requested her for the immediate repair or replacement thereof by another safe or steel filing cabinet. Mrs. Cedeno assured them that she will transfer the safe in her office to the Cashiering Unit inasmuch as she will eventually be transferring to the National Office. DETACa Petitioner made several follow-up to Mrs. Cedeno, but the steel filing cabinet remained unrepaired and the safe in her office was not transferred to the Cashiering Unit. It was only on November 19, 2001 when a safe was transferred to the Unit but it cannot be used because it was closed and locked and the keys as well as the lock combination of the safe were not turned over to the petitioner. On November 20, 2001, petitioner and Yolanda Berania went to Mrs. Cedeno's office twice to ask for the keys and lock combination of the said safe but she was not around. At around 1:00 p.m. of the same day, before encashing the payroll checks at the Land Bank Intramuros, Manila Branch, petitioner duly informed Mrs. Cedeno of the said encashment and again asked for the key and lock combination of the steel filing cabinet but she said "mamaya na lang." Petitioner even tried to borrow the Tamaraw FX assigned to Mrs. Cedeno but she said she going to use it. When the petitioner returned to the office after encashing the payroll checks, Mrs. Cedeno was no longer in her office and she did not leave the key or safe combination. It was only on November 23, 2001 when they were turned over to us. When the petitioner returned from Land Bank Intramuros after encashing the payroll checks, she together with Yolanda Berania, Sarah Dolina, and Concepcion Malinao segregated and placed the payroll money inside the respective pay envelopes of the BIR employees assigned to them. Thereafter, they distributed the pay envelopes until 5:00 p.m. Thereafter, they kept the unclaimed pay envelopes with the payroll money on the drawers of the steel cabinet which is being used by the Unit for safekeeping and closed the cabinet. Yolanda Berania and Ma. Concepcion Malinao left the office. After a while, petitioner also left the office. Sarah Dolina locked the door of the Cashiering Unit with a big chain and padlock. Before leaving the room, petitioner personally checked if the door was indeed locked. Thereafter, petitioner left already, leaving behind Sarah Dolina, Teresita Maglunog, and Vida Medina outside the said room. When the petitioner reported for work the following day, November 21, 2001, she was surprised to learn from Yolanda Berania and Sarah Dolina that the unclaimed payroll money of the BIR officials and employees which were placed inside the individual pay envelopes were missing. Petitioner immediately reported the robbery incident to Mr. David Dizon, Assistant Chief of the Special Investigation Division of Revenue Region No. 6, Manila, who in turn reported the incident to the Western Police District and the NBI. Petitioner also reported the incident to Mrs. Cedeno. Petitioner claimed that she has no other alternative but to keep the undistributed payroll money inside the steel filing cabinet because it is the only safest available place to safeguard and protect the said payroll money despite its defective condition, for the following conditions: aDSIHc 1. The steel filing cabinet is located inside the Cashiering Unit room, which was secured by a big chain and padlock. Therefore, the undistributed payroll money was well-secured and protected; 2. The main door of the office of the Administrative Division where the Cashiering Office is located is also secured by a lock; 3. The BIR Building, where the Cashiering Office can be found is well guarded and secured by security guard 24 hours day in and day out. Thereafter, a formal investigation ensued. Ruling of the BIR In an undated Decision No. 012420 in BIR Administrative Case No. 2305-02, Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Commissioner of Internal Revenue rendered a Decision , the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, respondent Alma C. Quintos is hereby found guilty of Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Revenue Service and is meted out the penalty of One (1) Year Suspension from the revenue service pursuant to Section 52, A (20). Rule IV, Penalties of the Uniform Rules in the Civil Service, Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order 292). SO ORDERED." 7 The petitioner sought a reconsideration of the said Decision but it was denied in Resolution No. 014459. 8 Ruling of the CSC Undaunted, the petitioner filed a Memorandum of Appeal 9 before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). However, the CSC in its Decision No. 131095 dated November 12, 2013 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The CSC disposed of the case as follows, to wit : " WHEREFORE , the petition for review of Ma. Alma C. Quintos, Head, Cashiering Unit, Administrative Division, Revenue Region (RR) No. 6, Manila, is hereby DISMISSED . However the undated Decision of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) through Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, Commissioner of Bureau of Internal Revenue, finding her guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposing upon her the penalty of one (1) year suspension from the revenue service pursuant to Section 52, A (20), Rule IV, Penalties of the Uniform Rules in the Civil Service (now Section 46 (B) (8), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service [RRACCS], and the undated Resolution denying her motion for reconsideration, are hereby MODIFIED . Accordingly, Quintos is found guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Gross Neglect of Duty and is imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service with all the accessory penalties of cancellation of Civil Service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except terminal leave benefits and personal contributions in the GSIS), perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking Civil Service Examinations. ETHIDa Copies of this Decision shall be furnished the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), Commission on Audit-BIR, Office of the Ombudsman, and the Integrated Records Management Office (IRMO), this Commission, for their appropriate action." 10 A timely Motion for Reconsideration 11 was filed by the petitioner but it was again denied in Resolution No. 1400247 12 dated February 18, 2014. Hence, the instant Petition for Review , raising the following errors, thus: " I. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PETITIONER/APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE HONORABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT/APPELLEE HONORABLE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE FINDING HER GUILTY OF CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE DESPITE LACK OF FACTUAL BASES THEREFOR. II. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PETITIONER/APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE HONORABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MISERABLY ERRED, NOT ONLY FOR AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF RESPONDENT/APPELLEE HONORABLE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE HOLDING HER GUILTY OF CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE, BUT ALSO FOR HOLDING HER GUILTY, BOTH ON APPEAL, OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AND PUNISHING HER THEREFOR DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE AND HER CO-EMPLOYEES IN THE CASHIERING UNIT HAD EXERCISED MORE THAN DUE DILIGENCE IN THE SAFEKEEPING OF THE FUNDS LOST, THUS PUTTING HER TWICE IN JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME ACTS. III. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PETITIONER/APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE HONORABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED IN AND FOR UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT/APPELLEE HONORABLE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE FINDING HER GUILTY OF CONDUCT GROSSLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE WITHOUT OBSERVANCE OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. cSEDTC IV. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PETITIONER/APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT, IN UPHOLDING, ON APPEAL, THE DECISION THAT RESPONDENT/APPELLEE HONORABLE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE RENDERED AFTER MORE OR LESS TEN (10) YEARS FOLLOWING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION AND SUBMISSION OF CASE FOR DECISION, DOES NOT ONLY RAISE GRAVE DOUBTS ON THE LACK OF MERITS THEREOF, BUT ALSO UPHELD THE OBVIOUS VIOLATION OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF HER CASE. " 13 On August 26, 2014, the respondent filed its Comment/Opposition (to the Appeal/Petition for Review). 14 The Issue The sole issue for our resolution is WHETHER THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY NOT ONLY OF CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE BUT ALSO OF GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY AND IN IMPOSING UPON HER THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL AND ALL ITS ACCESSORY PENALTIES. Our Ruling The Petition is MERITORIOUS . The BIR found the petitioner guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and was meted the penalty of one (1) year suspension. On appeal, the CSC found petitioner guilty not only of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service but also of Gross Neglect of Duty. She was meted the penalty of dismissal from the service with all the accessory penalties of cancellation of Civil Service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except terminal leave benefits and personal contributions in the GSIS), perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from taking Civil Service Examinations. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission , that the designation of the offense or offenses with which a person is charged in an administrative case is not controlling and one may be found guilty of another offense, where the substance of the allegations and evidence presented sufficiently proves one's guilt: "It is true that the petitioner was formally charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the bank and not specifically with embezzlement. Nevertheless, the allegations and the evidence presented sufficiently proved her guilt of embezzlement of bank funds, which is unquestionably prejudicial to the best interest of the bank. SDAaTC The charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense." 15 Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Jurisprudence, however, is instructive on this point. The Supreme Court has considered the following acts or omissions, inter alia , as Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service : misappropriation of public funds, abandonment of office, failure to report back to work without prior notice, 16 failure to safe keep public records and property , 17 making false entries in public documents and falsification of court orders. 18 Following the foregoing jurisprudence, we find that BIR was correct when it adjudged the petitioner guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service only. Acts may constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as long as they tarnish the image and integrity of his/her public office. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) enunciates, inter alia , the State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. The findings of the BIR show that the petitioner knew that the steel cabinet was defective but nonetheless took the risk of placing therein the huge amount of more than Five Million Pesos of payroll money regardless of the condition of the filing cabinet. Furthermore, the records of the instant case show that it was only after lunchtime on November 20, 2001 when she decided to go to Landbank to encash the fourteen (14) checks amounting to Six Million Five Hundred Ninety-Nine and Two Hundred Thirty Pesos (P6,599,230.00). Finally, petitioner was under obligation to secure the Cashiering Unit of her office with a permanent security guard posted within the perimeter of the place not only during the distribution of the bonuses to the employees, but on a 24/7 basis. We agree with the BIR that the foregoing conduct of the petitioner in the discharge of her duty can be characterized by laxity and complacency tantamount to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service only and not Gross Neglect of Duty as found by the CSC. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of integrity for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle that "a public office is a public trust and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility , integrity, loyalty and efficiency ." 19 The Courts cannot overemphasize the need for accountability in the acts of government officials. acEHCD The Court affirms the findings of the BIR that petitioner is liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service on the ground that she acted without due regard to the adverse consequences of her complacency/laxity which necessarily resulted in the loss of payroll money to the damage and prejudice of the employees of the revenue. On the other hand, we find that the CSC had no sufficient basis to modify the offense committed by the petitioner from Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and the graver offense of Gross Neglect of Duty. Neglect of Duty is the failure of an employee to give his attention to a task expected of him and is censurable under the Civil Service Rules. Gross Neglect of Duty , on the other hand, denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. 20 It refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. In the case of public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 21 It is listed as an offense under the Omnibus Rules Implementing E.O. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987). The Supreme Court has categorized the following as constitutive of the grave offense of Gross Neglect of Duty : negligence in the prosecution of cases and malicious delay in the administration of justice by a police officer, 22 act of provincial warden in retaining a prisoner in his custody without authority and just cause instead of sending him to the Muntinlupa penitentiary, 23 failure to transcribe stenographic notes of 18 cases which dated as far back as 1972, 24 failure of a judge to decide a case within a period fixed by law, 25 and exerting undue influence by a deputy clerk of court on a judge in the disposition of cases pending before the court. 26 The petitioner's offense is not of the same gravity or odiousness as in the aforecited cases as would amount to Gross Neglect of Duty as found by the CSC. WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The assailed November 12, 2013 Decision and February 18, 2014 Resolution issued by the Civil Service Commission are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Bureau of Internal Revenue in BIR Administrative Case No. 2305-02 is REINSTATED . SDHTEC SO ORDERED . Dimaampao and Diamante, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 98-110. 2. Rollo , pp. 139-143. 3. Rollo , pp. 111-124. 4. Rollo , pp. 27-28. 5. Rollo , p. 27. 6. Rollo , pp. 163-166. 7. Rollo , p. 36. 8. Rollo , pp. 47-49. 9. Rollo , pp. 50-63. 10. Rollo , p. 110. 11. Rollo , pp. 111-124. 12. Rollo , pp. 139-143. 13. Rollo , pp. 8-9. 14. Rollo , pp. 171-186. 15. G.R. No. 106498, 28 June 1993, 223 SCRA 747, 754. 16. In re Report of the Financial Audit Conducted on the Accounts of Zenaida Garcia, A.M. No. 97-1-03, 303 SCRA 142 (1999). 17. Unknown Municipal Councilor of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija vs. Alomia, Jr., A.M. No. P-91-660, 212 SCRA 330 (1992). 18. Ponferrada vs. Relator , A.M. No. P-87-119, 181 SCRA 698 (1990). 19. Re: (1) Lost Checks Issued to the Late Roderick Roy P. Melliza, Former Clerk II, MCTC, Zaragga, Iloilo and (2) Dropping from the Rolls of Ms. Esther T. Andres, A.M. No. 2005-26-SC, 22 November 2006, 507 SCRA 478, 498. 20. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition, pp. 832 and 1184; PRA v. Rupa , G.R. No. 140519, August 21, 2001. 21. CSC v. Rabang , G.R. No. 167763, March 14, 2008. 22. Martinez vs. Municipal Mayor of Labason , 103 Phil. 634 (1958). 23. People vs. Tan , 19 SCRA 433 (1967). 24. Ceniza-Guevarra vs. Magbanua , A.M. No. P-94-1107, 304 SCRA 113 (1999). 25. Saylo vs. Judge Rojo , A.M. No. MTJ-99-1225 April 12, 2000. 26. Zari vs. Flores , 94 SCRA 317 (1979).