THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230386. June 7, 2017.]
VICTOR B. ENDRIGA, petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 7, 2017, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 230386 — VICTOR B. ENDRIGA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents.
The petitioner was appointed as the City Treasurer of the City of Pasig, and served in such capacity until his retirement on August 18, 2008. His services were extended for a year; hence, he occupied the position of City Treasurer until August 17, 2009. 1 During his tenure, he was granted several cash advances on various dates in the period from 1992 to 2001 totaling P15,026,108.74 to be used to defray expenses incurred for various activities of the City of Pasig. On June 30, 2009, however, it was discovered that he still had unliquidated cash advances amounting to P12,751,108.74. This prompted the Commission on Audit (COA) to send a final demand letter dated July 6, 2009 ordering him to settle his accountabilities and to submit the necessary documents or to explain in writing the unliquidated cash advances within 30 days. He failed to heed the demand. 2 HTcADC
The COA later on submitted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for appropriate action its Narrative Report and Statement of Cash Advances and Liquidations on the petitioner's unliquidated cash advances. 3 By December 8, 2009, CSC's Office of Legal Affairs (CSC-OLA) directed him to submit his comment on the report within 10 days from receipt, but he failed to comply. Instead, on January 18, 2010, he submitted an affidavit wherein he stated that the cash advances had been used to defray different expenses of the City of Pasig; and that the documents, vouchers and receipts were in the possession of Ms. Carmen Espinosa, the former Administrative Officer II of the City Treasurer's Office, who had left the country without proper turnover and without appropriate clearances. In a separate comment dated October 15, 2012, he asserted that that he had already been exonerated of a similar complaint lodged in the Office of the Ombudsman. 4
In the interim, the petitioner was re-employed as the City Administrator of Quezon City, and remained in that office until December 31, 2013. 5
Eventually, the CSC rendered Decision No. 13-0116 dated February 5, 2013 formally charging the petitioner with gross neglect of duty. 6
After due proceedings, the CSC issued Decision No. 15-0073 dated January 30, 2015 finding the petitioner guilty of gross neglect of duty due to his failure to liquidate the cash advances that he received within the period provided by law, and dismissed him from the service. However, noting that his term of office had meanwhile expired, the CSC instead imposed the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, cancellation of eligibility, prohibition from taking future civil service examinations, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the Government. 7
After the CSC eventually denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on May 20, 2015, 8 he appealed to the CA. CAIHTE
In its assailed decision promulgated on November 18, 2016, 9 the CA affirmed the CSC, explaining that the petitioner had not been deprived of due process despite the fact that some of the infractions were committed as far back as 1992 because he had been accorded several opportunities to defend himself; that the Arias doctrine was inapplicable because under the Local Government Code he was duty bound as the City Treasurer to ensure compliance with the procedures relating to the disbursement and liquidation of the public funds of the City of Pasig, and such responsibility could not be delegated to a mere subordinate; that the dismissal of the case by the Ombudsman did not bar the administrative case from proceeding because the cases had stemmed from different transactions; and that his habitual and nonchalant attitude in not complying with the rules on liquidation rendered him liable for gross neglect of duty.
The motion for reconsideration of the petitioner was denied by the CA on March 1, 2017. 10
Hence, this appeal, wherein the petitioner reiterates that his right to due process was violated due to the inordinate and oppressive delay of the COA in confronting him about his accountabilities; that the long delay of more than 17 years from the time of demand deprived him of the opportunity to gather evidence in his behalf; and that even if he would be found wanting, he should only be held guilty of simple neglect of duty because he had exerted earnest efforts to settle his accountabilities.
The issue is whether or not the petitioner was guilty of gross neglect of duty.
The Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to show any reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals (CA) to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
We agree with the CA that the petitioner's right to due process was not violated. The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the adverse action or ruling complained of. 11 The records indicate that he was given such opportunity several times most of which he chose not to respond. Hence, his right to due process cannot be said to have been violated. aScITE
The CA also correctly declared the petitioner guilty of gross neglect of duty. A review of the records indicates that there was sufficient evidence to prove the charge against him.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the assailed decision and resolution dated November 18, 2016 and March 1, 2017, respectively, of the Court of Appeals; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 11.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 12.
4.Id. in 12-13.
5.Id. at 14.
6.Id. at 13.
7.Id. at 14-15.
8.Id. at 15.
9.Id. at 10-23; penned by Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, and concurred in by Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and Justice Franchito N. Diamante.
10.Id. at 25-27.
11.Montoya v. Varilla, G.R. No. 180146, December 18, 2008, 574 SCRA 831, 840.