SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207275. January 5, 2022.]
EVELYN T. ORTEZA, petitioner, vs.ENGR. CARLITO F. PENTECOSTES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF GONZAGA, CAGAYAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 January 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207275 (Evelyn T. Orteza v. Engr. Carlito F. Pentecostes, Jr., in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of Gonzaga, Cagayan). — The case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by Evelyn T. Orteza (petitioner), seeking to set aside the Decision 2 dated May 21, 2013 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 123276 which affirmed the Decision dated October 6, 2011 and Resolution dated January 10, 2012 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) finding her guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from service with all its accessory penalties.
The Facts of the Case
The facts of the case were undisputed. On April 27, 2009, Virgie Z. Patulay (Patulay), Municipal Treasurer of Gonzaga, Cagayan thru a letter sent to their then incumbent Mayor Rosendo P. Abad of Gonzaga, Cagayan, informing the latter that herein petitioner issued Official Receipt No. 0227194 to a certain Sammy Siruno (Siruno) which do not tally with its duplicate as recorded in the abstract of collection of real property taxes. 3
Petitioner was the Revenue Collection Clerk and she collected from Siruno the amount of P4,621.83 representing the latter's payment for real property tax for the year 2004-2005 and thereafter, she issued a corresponding official receipt bearing the numbers 0227194. 4
In the following year, when Siruno was to pay for his property tax again, he noticed a discrepancy in the date of issuance and the amount in his old official receipt and its duplicate copies on record. The duplicate copy reflected only the amount of P1,306.15. 5
Thus, an investigation was conducted. The Administrative Investigation Committee of Gonzaga, Cagayan found the administrative case against petitioner meritorious and recommended for her dismissal from service. 6
On August 13, 2009, the Office of the Mayor of Gonzaga, Cagayan issued a Resolution finding petitioner guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. As a consequence, petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service. 7
Petitioner filed for a reconsideration with the Office of the Mayor, however the same was denied. Thus, she appealed her case with the CSC, Central Office. The CSC then found that petitioner's dismissal from service was erroneous and thereby ordered her reinstatement. However, the resolution is without prejudice on the part of the disciplining authority to refile the case and issue the corresponding formal charge against her, 8 to wit: CAIHTE
WHEREFORE, the case subject of the appeal of [petitioner] is hereby DISMISSED. However, this shall be without prejudice on the part of the disciplining authority to refile the case against [petitioner], to issue the corresponding formal charge and to conduct the formal investigation in accordance with the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
However, for the violation of [petitioner's] right to due process because of the failure of the Municipality of Gonzaga, Province of Cagayan, to issue a formal charge in accordance with the rules, said Municipality is directed to reinstate [petitioner] as Revenue Collection Clerk of said municipality with payment of back salaries and other benefits from the time she was dismissed from the service until her actual reinstatement. 9
In compliance with the above ruling, a Formal Charge was issued by the Office of the Mayor on June 28, 2010 against petitioner. In the said charge, it was stated that the Office of the Mayor found a prima facie case against petitioner for the administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty. 10
Petitioner thru her Answer-Affidavit dated July 5, 2010, answered the formal charge stating that it was due to financial distress that she was forced to take her collection and falsify the receipts. She further averred that she has shown remorse as she immediately admitted her wrongdoing after the complaint was filed before the investigating committee. 11
On July 30, 2010, the Office of the Mayor issued a Resolution finding petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, [petitioner], is found guilty of the administrative offenses of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and DISHONESTY thereby warranting her DISMISSAL from the government service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification to hold government office.
[Petitioner] is further ordered to return to the coffers of the Municipality of Gonzaga, Cagayan the sum of Three Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen Pesos and 68/100 (P3,315.68) representing the amount she exacted for herself plus legal interest starting from December 27, 2005 until such time that the said amount is fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 12
Petitioner filed for a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied. Petitioner then appealed to the CSC. On October 6, 2011, the CSC denied the appeal and affirmed the Resolution dated July 30, 2010 of the Office of the Mayor. Likewise, the CSC imposed the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility and bar petitioner from taking any Civil Service examination. Petitioner sought for a reconsideration but the same was denied. 13
Aggrieved, petitioner brought the case before the CA via petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner argued that the CSC committed grave error in disregarding the mitigating circumstances in her favor and thus, imposing an incorrect penalty. 14
The CA was not convinced and through the assailed Decision denied the petition. The CA ratiocinated that dismissal is an indivisible penalty thus not susceptible to mitigation. Further, petitioner's unconditional confession of guilt was viewed by the court as an aggravating circumstance rather than a mitigating circumstance. 15 The dispositive part of the decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated October 6, 2011 and the Resolution dated January 10, 2012 of the Civil Service Commission finding petitioner x x x guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from service with all its accessory penalties are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.16
Hence, the present recourse.
The Issues
Petitioner submits the following issues for this Court's consideration:
1. The CA gravely erred in affirming the Decision and Resolution of the CSC ordering the dismissal of petitioner from service;
2. The CA gravely erred in not considering the mitigating circumstance attendant in the present case in favor of petitioner; and
3. The CA gravely erred in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. 17
The Court's Ruling
At the Outset, in Rule 45 petitions, We only review errors of law as the Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of administrative officials and agencies, such as CSC, which have acquired expertise in the performance of their official duties and in the exercise of their primary jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, such as in the present case. 18
It is an undisputed fact that herein petitioner committed the offenses charged. She confessed that she did the act due to financial distress. Clearly, petitioner was dishonest in the conduct of her service to the municipality. However, petitioner questions whether the dismissal from service is a proper penalty to be imposed upon her for the act she committed. DETACa
Dishonesty is defined as the [d]isposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. 19 It is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of one's duties. It reflects on the person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys one's honor, virtue, and integrity. 20 As provided under Section 2 of the Rules on Administrative Offense of Dishonesty, 21
Dishonesty is classified into three acts: serious dishonesty, less serious dishonesty and simple dishonesty. Serious dishonesty is punishable by dismissal. Less serious dishonesty is punishable by suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Simple dishonesty is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense.
Under Section 3 of the Rules on Administrative Offense of Dishonesty, the presence of any of the following attendant circumstances in the commission of the dishonest act constitutes the offense of serious dishonesty:
1. The dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the government;
2. The respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the dishonest act;
3. Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the dishonest act directly involves property; accountable forms or money for which he is directly accountable; and respondent shows intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption;
4. The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of the respondent;
5. The respondent employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her employment;
6. The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions;
7. The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to, impersonation, cheating and use of crib sheets;
8. Other analogous circumstances.
On the other hand, there is grave misconduct when there has been transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. 22 The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, all of which must be established by substantial evidence, and must necessarily be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. 23 The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. The misconduct must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. 24 Corruption, as an element of Grave Misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. 25
We agree with the findings of the CSC which was affirmed by the CA that petitioner committed grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.
In the case at bar, petitioner is a Revenue Collection Clerk. She was tasked to collect the real estate property tax payments and to issue the official receipt to the taxpayer. In the dishonest act committed by petitioner, she issued an official receipt which is altered in order for her to collect a higher amount from the taxpayer (Siruno). Thereafter, she kept the difference between the actual amount needed to be paid and the amount she wrote in the official receipt. It is clear that by virtue of her position, she was able to commit the dishonest act and even employed falsification of official document. There was a clear misconduct and dishonesty committed. 26
Under Section 52, A (1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RURACCS), 27 the penalty of dismissal is imposed for the commission of dishonesty and grave misconduct even as a first offense. The aforesaid rule underscores the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust and only those who can live up to such exacting standard deserve the honor of continuing in public service. 28
Petitioner argues that dismissal from service is too harsh of a penalty to be imposed on her and begs this Court that a lower penalty should be imposed. Petitioner contends that she unconditionally confessed her guilt when a complaint was filed against her. She returned the money which she took and promised to reform her ways. It was highly presumptuous on the part of the CA to view her unconditional plea of guilt with malice considering that at present she was still helping the Local Government Unit in any way she can to show her remorse and her willingness to reform.
Section 53 of the RURACCS provides the circumstances which can be considered as mitigating, aggravating and extenuating: aDSIHc
SECTION 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating, or Alternative Circumstances. — In the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered.
The following circumstances shall be appreciated:
a. Physical illness
b. Good faith
c. Taking undue advantage of official position
d. Taking undue advantage of subordinate
e. Undue disclosure of confidential information
f. Use of government property in the commission of the offense
g. Habituality
h. Offense is committed during office hours and within the premises of the office or building
i. Employment of fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense
j. Length of service in the government
k. Education, or
l. Other analogous circumstances
Nevertheless, in the appreciation thereof, the same must be invoked or pleaded by the proper party, otherwise, said circumstances shall not be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty. The Commission, however, in the interest of substantial justice may take and consider these circumstances.
Moreover, the Court in Camsol v. Civil Service Commission, 29 held that,
In a catena of administrative cases involving grave offenses, We had indeed exercised the discretion granted by Section 48, and appreciated the existence of mitigating factors, which ultimately led to the imposition of a penalty less harsh than an automatic dismissal. In those cases, factors such as the respondents' length of service, their acknowledgment of infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, advanced age, among other things, have had varying significance in the Court's determination of the imposable penalty. x x x 30 (Citations omitted)
However, it must be noted that the mere presence of the circumstance in a given case does not mean that it should be applied automatically. In the case of Chairman Duque III v. Veloso, 31 the Court held that:
In appreciating the presence of mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances to a given case, two constitutional principles come into play which the Court is tasked to balance. The first is public accountability which requires the Court to consider the improvement of public service, and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government by ensuring that only individuals who possess good moral character, integrity and competence are employed in the government service. The second relates to social justice which gives the Court the discretionary leeway to lessen the harsh effects of the wrongdoing committed by an offender for equitable and humanitarian considerations. 32 (Citation omitted)
Guided by these principles, We find that petitioner's penalty of dismissal should not be mitigated. Petitioner's claim that her acknowledgment of guilt, restitution of the amount she had taken and her promise to reform her ways are not sufficient grounds to warrant mitigation of her penalty.
We agree with the findings of the CA that the confession of guilt of petitioner was made only out of fear of possible sanction. 33 The unconditional admission was made because the malefaction was already discovered. Still in the case of Duque, 34 admission of guilt and restitution were not considered to mitigate the penalty. The Court held that:
Finally, we reject as mitigating circumstances the respondent's admission of his culpability and the restitution of the amount. As pointed out by the CSC, the respondent made use of the complainant's money in 2001 while the restitution was made only in 2003, during the pendency of the administrative case against him. Under the circumstances, the restitution was half-hearted and was certainly neither purely voluntary nor made because of the exercise of good conscience; it was triggered, more than anything else, by his fear of possible administrative penalties. The admission of guilt and the restitution effected were clearly mere afterthoughts made two (2) years after the commission of the offense and after the administrative complaint against him was filed. With these circumstances in mind, we do not find it justified to relieve the respondent of the full consequences of his dishonest actions. 35 (Citations omitted)
The circumstances above are similar in the present case. Petitioner only confessed her guilt upon filing of the complaint against her. We find that petitioner's reason that she was merely forced to commit such dishonesty out of financial distress, untenable. She could have easily returned the said amount and came forward in her own volition prior being discovered. But instead, the facts showed that four (4) years already lapsed before petitioner admitted her dishonesty. The act was committed in 2005 and was discovered only in 2009. Such would show a clear intention of petitioner to conceal what she has done, save for a fact that the dishonesty was discovered.
While it is true that jurisprudence is replete with cases whereby this court mitigated the penalties imposed even in grave offenses, such cannot be appreciated in the instant case. Herein petitioner is not a first time offender. In fact, she was previously charged of Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service for her unremitted collections. 36 This clearly show the moral depravity of petitioner. ETHIDa
Even if we consider petitioner as a first time offender or her length of service, petitioner's charge can't still be mitigated. Jurisprudence provides that grave offense cannot be mitigated by the fact that the accused is a first time offender or by the length of service of the accused. 37 While in most cases, the length of service is considered in favor of the wrongdoer, it is not considered where the offense is found to be serious or grave. 38
Lastly, petitioner failed to present, other than her acknowledgment of guilt, remorse and restitution, circumstances which this Court could consider in order to downgrade her penalty. We find that mere enumeration of cases wherein the court imposed a lesser penalty will not suffice. Petitioner should have provided a clear and substantial reason on why her penalty should be lowered. While there is no doubt that misfeasance and malfeasance in office are not to be countenanced, each case must be decided with due consideration of all attendant circumstances. In other words, compassion will be exerted in favor of the deserving, but those who are not must meet the full force of the law. 39
Based on the foregoing, the CA did not err in affirming the penalties imposed upon the petitioner. Dishonesty and grave misconduct have always been and should remain anathema in the civil service. A civil servant who commits them exhibits moral obliquity and is neither fit nor worthy to remain in public office. 40 Petitioner is a public officer handling public funds. Petitioner's act does not abide with the constitutional mandate 41 of a public officer and keeping her in service will be detrimental to the municipality and as well as to the public she serves.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated May 21, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 123276 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-22.
2.Id. at 6-12; penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.
3.Id. at 7.
4.Id.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 7-9.
8.Id. at 8.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 8-9.
13.Id. at 9.
14.Id. at 9-10.
15.Id. at 10-11.
16.Id. at 12.
17.Id. at 17.
18. See Miranda v. CSC, G.R. No. 213502, February 18, 2019.
19.Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Alcantara, 754 Phil. 20, 25 (2015) citing Judge Corpus v. Ramiterre, 512 Phil. 518 (2005).
20.Prieto v. Cariaga, 312 Phil. 373, 380 (1995).
21. CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, April 4, 2006.
22.Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Alcantara, supra note 19 at 26.
23.Re: Theft of Used Galvanized Iron (GI) Sheets in the SC Compound, Baguio City, 665 Phil. 1, 10 (2011). (Citation omitted)
24.Office of the Court Administrator v. Musngi, 691 Phil. 117, 122 (2012). (Citation omitted)
25.Office of the Ombudsman v. Asis, G.R. No. 237503, June 20, 2018 citing Miro v. Vda. De Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 797 (2013).
26.Rollo, p. 7.
27. 09-14-1999 CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19-99 (Amended), September 27, 1999.
28.Chairman Duque III v. Veloso, 688 Phil. 318, 323 (2012).
29. G.R. No. 238059, June 8, 2020.
30.Id.
31.Supra note 28.
32.Id. at 323-324.
33.Rollo, p. 11.
34.Chairman Duque III v. Veloso, supra note 26.
35.Id. at 327.
36.Rollo, pp. 39-40 and 49.
37.Diaz v. Office of the Ombudsman, 834 Phil. 735, 747-748 (2018).
38.Dr. Bondoc v. Mantala, 746 Phil. 938, 954 (2014).
39.Moreno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 238566, February 2019.
40.Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission, 524 Phil. 271, 281 (2006).
41. Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION states as follows: Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.