How to File a Complaint Again Rubios

September 2004 - Philippine Supreme Courtroom Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Re: Complaint filed by Atty. Rubio on the Declared Falsification of Public Documents : AM 2004-17-SC : September 27, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution

EN BANC

[A.M. NO. 2004-17-SC. September 27, 2004]

RE: COMPLAINT FILED Past ATTY. FRANCIS ALLAN A. RUBIO ON THE ALLEGED FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND Malversation OF PUBLIC FUNDS.

R E South O L U T I ON

TINGA, J.:

On ten Feb 2004, Atty. Francis Allan Rubio, one-time Director 4, Senate Electoral Tribunal and formerly detailed to the Office of retired Senior Acquaintance Justice Josue North. Bellosillo, filed a letter of the alphabet-complaint¹ with the Office of the Chief Justice regarding what he described equally a criminal deed of Delinquency THRU FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.^two cralawred

Atty. Rubio claimed that he was non able to collect his overtime pay worth Pane, 900.00 for work rendered from 05 to 09 November 1993 during the impeachment cases confronting the Main Justice. According to him, when he tried to collect his overtime pay in January 2004, Mr. Jesus Moncayo, Cashier III, Chief of the Cash Disbursement Section, told him that the amount was already recorded as account payable and would be paid through a voucher. After some follow-ups, Atty. Rubio learned that some unscrupulous and corrupt person/s forged his signature in the payroll and collected his overtime pay.³ cralawred

However, on eleven Feb 2004, Atty. Rubio, through another letter of the alphabet submitted to the Office of the Primary Justice, sought the withdrawal of his earlier letter of the alphabet-complaint, considering that he received from Mr. Moncayo the corporeality of P1,900.00 roofing his overtime pay which he was not able to collect earlier.^four cralawred

On 16 February 2004, the Function of the Chief Attorney through a Memorandum⁵ to the Chief Justice, recommended that the letter of the alphabet-complaint of Atty. Rubio exist referred to the Complaints and Investigation Division of the Office of Administrative Services (CID-OAS) for investigation, report and recommendation for the purpose of (i) earthworks deeper into the incident so as to pinpoint responsibility for the declared forgery and the erroneous delivery of overtime pay to the incorrect individual, and (2) finding means that may be adopted past the Cashier Division to forestall the recurrence of the incident.⁶ cralawred

In the class of the investigation by the CID-OAS, the following persons were summoned: (ane) Ms. Araceli Bayuga, SC Judicial Staff Officer, Drove and Disbursement Division, FMBO; (two) Mr. Jesus R. Moncayo, Cashier Three, Collection and Disbursement Partition, FMBO; (3) Ms. Ludeva Medina, former Judicial Staff Head, Part of Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo and now PET Supervising Judicial Staff Officer, Role of Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga; (4) Atty. Francis Allan Rubio, onetime legal staff of the Office of Retired Senior Associate Justice Josue Due north. Bellosillo; (5) Mr. Roberto Angelias, former Court Stenographer II, Office of Associate Justice Josue Northward. Bellosillo and at present Clerk Three, Office of the Deputy Courtroom Administrator Zenaida N. Elepao; and (6) Mr. Romeo B. Garrovillas, Messenger, Collection and Disbursement Division, FMBO.⁷ cralawred

The Court adopts the findings of the CID-OAS, summarized as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

Atty. Rubio was 1 of the lawyers entitled to overtime pay for piece of work rendered in Nov 2003 during the impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice. Incidentally, the Office of Justice Bellosillo was busy around the same time in view of the Justices retirement. In line with this, Atty. Rubio was working on his transfer to the Office of the Ombudsman.⁸ cralawred

Sometime in Jan 2004, Atty. Rubio went to the Cashiers Office to claim his overtime pay, which was supposed to be paid in cash. Mr. Moncayo of the Cash Partitioning told him that the corporeality was already under Accounts Payable account and, hence, would be paid through a voucher. Atty. Rubio asked Mr. Roberto Angelias to follow upwards the voucher. When Mr. Angelias did so, he establish out that there was no check available, prompting Mr. Moncayo and his staff to look for the voucher. Upon verification from the payroll, they found out that there was no voucher because the amount appeared to have been released. In that location appeared on the voucher a signature reverse the name of Atty. Rubio, signifying receipt of the amount.⁹ cralawred

In the early on part of February 2004, Atty. Rubio tried to get his bank check from the Cashiers Function, but to find out that he could not get anything. When he confronted Mr. Moncayo about this, the latter was discourteous and even insinuated that Atty. Rubio should be blamed for what had happened because it took him some time to brand a claim for his money.¹⁰ Atty. Rubio, through Mr. Angelias, was able to secure a photocopy of the payroll.^eleven cralawred

Atty. Rubio filed his letter-complaint on x February 2004, but withdrew the same on the next day in view of Mr. Moncayos payment of his overtime pay.¹² cralawred

During the investigation, Mr. Moncayo admitted to having remitted the corporeality of P1, 900.00 to Atty. Rubio, only denied responsibility for the unauthorized release of Atty. Rubios overtime pay. He claimed that information technology was Mr. Garrovillas, a messenger at the FMBO, who released the amount. Moreover, Mr. Moncayo stated that he was surprised that an investigation was still conducted when in fact he had already paid with his ain money the amount due Atty. Rubio. He claimed that he made the payment because Atty. Rubio got very angry and threatened to file a complaint before the Chief Justice. He maintained that he conducted his ain investigation and compared bachelor signatures to discover a lucifer with the forged signature, but to no avail.¹³ cralawred

Mrs. Araceli Bayuga, Chief of the Cash Segmentation, FMBO claimed that she herself fabricated a comparison of the forged signature with that of the signatures of other Court employees, but did not come up with a conclusive upshot. She discarded the idea that the incident was an inside job, stating that in her long years of service with her sectionalization, this was the first time than an incident like the subject incident occurred. She implored the Courtroom to help them come up with a measure to deter incidents similar to this.¹⁴ cralawred

On the other hand, Mr. Garrovillas denied having released the coin. He testified that he did not know Atty. Rubio until February 2004, when the incident broke out. He stated that if a person making a merits for payment with the Cashiers Role is not familiar with whatever of its staff (referring to Mrs. Julieta Jorie Alcaraz, Ms. Belen Jimenez and Mr. Garrovillas himself), and such person does not take the proper identification or a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) should he be making the merits on behalf of anotherthen they refer the person to Mr. Moncayo, who past reason of his position takes charge and ultimately releases the amount.¹⁵ cralawred

The CID-OAS conducted its own thorough inspection of the payroll and took pains to compare the forged signature with the existing signatures in the payroll sheets, merely it did not find any match. The CID surmised that no person in his right heed would perpetrate the act of forgery and at the same fourth dimension would allow himself be traced equally a culprit. Thus, it ended that the perpetrators signing for and claiming the disputed overtime pay are acts which done deliberately.¹⁶ Withal, the CID found the following facts to be undisputed: Atty. Rubio did not receive his overtime allowance; the signature appearing on the payroll was not Atty. Rubios; the person to whom it was released or the person [who] claimed for information technology remained to exist unidentified, and so was the Cash Partitioning personnel who released the said amount.¹⁷ cralawred

As a effect of its investigation, the CID-OAS recommended the following:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

A. Mr. Jesus R. Moncayo exist charged administratively for Neglect of Duty and be asked to comment on the Letter-Complaint of Atty. Rubio to accord him due process; andcralawlibrary

b. Mrs. Corazon M. Ordoez, Manager V, Financial Management and Budget Office be directed to prepare and submit policy on the guidelines on the release of greenbacks benefits, allowances or salaries of officials and employees of the Court in coordination with the SC Chief Judicial Staff Officers of the FMBO within 30 (30) days from receipt of the Courts action.^xviii cralawred

Mr. Moncayo submitted his Annotate,¹⁹ wherein he stated that as a matter of practice; they (in the Disbursement Section) initially crave employees to present their IDs simply dispensed with the requirement subsequently gaining familiarity with the employees and their signatures. They likewise require SPAs when the claimants are representatives of employees.^xx Mr. Moncayo claims that prior to the incident, he did non know Atty. Rubio personally, and that if he was the ane who released Atty. Rubios overtime pay, he would have required the latter to produce his ID.²¹ Mr. Moncayo averred that upon knowledge of the incident, he conducted his own investigation but failed to identify the perpetrator, equally well as the employee who released the bailiwick overtime pay. He claimed he had no intention to camouflage or to countenance the unauthorized release of the amount when he paid Atty. Rubio his overtime pay. He explained that it was a judgment phone call on his role taking into business relationship that it was the first time that this situation happened.²² cralawred

Meanwhile, Mrs. Ordoez submitted proposed guidelines on the disbursement of salaries, allowances and other monetary benefits of Court officials and employees.²³ The same was referred to Atty. Eden Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Courtroom and Chief Administrative Officer for annotate. On 21 July 2004, Atty. Candelaria submitted a Memorandum addressed to the Court, containing comments and recommendations on the proposed guidelines.²⁴ On 27 July 2004, the Court en banc issued Administrative Round No. 32-2004, PRESCRIBING THE GUIDELINES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SALARIES PAID IN CASH, ALLOWANCES, OVERTIME PAY, FRINGE BENEFITS, Taxation REFUNDS, BONUSES, AND ALL OTHER EMOLUMENTS PAID IN CASH TO OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE Court AND THE PRESIDENTIAL Electoral TRIBUNAL.²⁵ The circular seeks to avoid problems affecting the distribution of salaries, allowances and emoluments paid in cash to Court officials and employees, similar to the instant controversy.²⁶ It features new rules in the distribution of pay envelopes, to wit: i) delivery of allowances and emoluments to primal officials of the Court only, while all other employees must claim the same from the counter of the Cash Sectionalisation; ii) limited period for release of emoluments; three) schedule of distribution of pay envelopes per surname; four) presentation of identification cards to the disbursing officer, counting of the contents of the envelope, and acquittance of receipt thereof past signing the payroll; v. ) non-release of emoluments to a person other than the employee concerned, except when such person is an immediate fellow member of the employees family, and such person has a duly notarized Special Ability of Attorney (SPA), specifying its validity appointment and budgetary emolument for which it is issued.²⁷ cralawred

With the condom measures adopted and in place, the only issue remaining is the liability of Mr. Moncayo, who as Cashier III and head of the Cash Disbursement Sectionalisation, had ultimate responsibleness for the matter at hand.

The demand to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government, its agencies and instrumentalities requires that proceedings in administrative cases should not exist made to depend on the whims and caprices of complainants.²⁸ This Court cannot be bound past the unilateral deed of the complainant in a matter which may involve its disciplinary power; otherwise that power may be put to naught, thereby undermining the trust grapheme of a public function and impairing the integrity and dignity of this Court as a disciplining authority over all employees of the judiciary.²⁹ cralawred

The Position of Cashier Iii has the following task description:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

Nether full general supervision and in his particular area of specialization, provides practiced recommendatory action and assist as required by his firsthand caput; provides back-up studies on matters inside area of specialization; conducts necessary research and discussions on a variety of specialized subjects and submits recommendation for activity; undertakes studies towards the continuing improvement of work procedures and techniques; does special assignments given by his firsthand head. Prepares payroll of Supreme Court Officials and employees, Judicial and Bar Council and Judiciary Planning, Development and Implementation Office personnel, assist in the counting of monies to be placed in pay envelopes for payment of salaries, Allowances and Overtime pay to the Courts Justices, Officials and employees; prepares vouchers for cash advances, for initial salaries, including computation thereof, for terminal leave with pay and motherhood exit with pay, unclaimed salaries, Index payments to employees, performs other duties as may be assigned from fourth dimension to time by immediate Main; and does related task.³⁰ cralawred

Over and in a higher place these responsibilities is Mr. Moncayos duties and functions as Section Chief, described as follows:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

Under general supervision, has directly supervision and control over the operations and activities of the department including the personnel thereof; gives instructions and guidance on work methods and procedures; plans distribution of work amongst subordinates; maintains data apropos the activities of the unit of measurement for adequate review of college officials; analyzes, verifies and consolidates data required by higher officials; studies and prepares reports and recommendations on matters referred to him by his superior; participates in the review of a variety of matters before final submission and approval by the principal of function; maintains office discipline and recommends required administrative action to superior; settles technical and procedural issues; prepares reports, communications and memoranda as required; authenticates copies of documents; approves and signs requisitions for supplies and equipment; signs official correspondence; rates the efficiency/performance of subordinate personnel; and does related tasks.³¹ cralawred

The payment made by Mr. Moncayo and the consequent withdrawal of complaint by Atty. Rubio did not stop or resolve the effect. Sec. half dozen, Rule 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Volume V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292) provides:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

Sec.6. Withdrawal of the complaint does non necessarily discharge respondent from any authoritative liability. Where there is obvious truth or merit to the charges or complaint, the same should exist given due class.

In his Respond, Atty. Rubio clarified that he was not accusing Mr. Moncayo of any wrongdoing, nor of being a participant in the irregularities regarding his overtime pay. He claimed that Mr. Moncayos proper noun was mentioned in his complaint only because the latter was the one who attended to him when he claimed his overtime pay.

Actions in administrative cases are contained of the will of the complainant. While Atty. Rubio may consider this case airtight insofar as Mr. Moncayo is concerned, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the bibelot which was brought to its attending. Withdrawal of the complaint volition not free respondent from his administrative liability particularly because administrative proceedings against public employees are imbued with public interest, public office being a public trust.³² cralawred

While there may be no show pointing to the perpetrator in the instant case, the fact remains that the incident would accept been avoided had the Cash Disbursement Section observed the proper procedure involved in the releasing of the allowance, to wit: requiring the person to present proper identification or, in this particular case, a Special Power of Attorney. In the course of the investigation made by the OAS, Mr. Moncayo stated that information technology became a matter of exercise in his Department to release monies without requiring the presentation of the required documents if they recognize or are familiar with the face of the claimant. He admitted that the unauthorized release in the instant instance was made without requiring the claimant to present any identification. However, he denied having fabricated the release and claimed that it was one of the members of his staff who released the amount.

Every bit Chief of the Cash Disbursement Section, information technology was Mr. Moncayos chief duty to encounter to it that the proper process for release of coin due the employees is followed. For having condoned, and fifty-fifty being guilty of non abiding by these rules, Mr. Moncayo had shown himself to be lacking in the diligence required of his position. His failure amounts to negligence.

The Courtroom agrees with the recommendation of the OAS that respondent Jesus Moncayo be administratively sanctioned for his fail of duty, which, under the Charabanc Rules Implementing Volume V of the E.O. No. 292,³³ is tantamount to Unproblematic Neglect of Duty, a less grave crime penalized with pause for one (1) month and i (ane) solar day to six (6) months for the kickoff offense and dismissal for the 2nd offense.

However, in determining the applicable penalisation in this case, this Court takes into consideration the lack of bad faith and the long years of service of Mr. Moncayo in the judiciary. In addition, this Court gives due regard to the fact that this is the first time that this incident happened during Mr. Moncayos watch every bit Principal of the Cash Disbursement Section. On 01 September 2004, Mr. Moncayo retired from the Supreme Courtroom, having reached the compulsory retirement age of lx years.

Bearing in listen the foregoing and for humanitarian considerations, and in view of Mr. Moncayos retirement which makes suspension extraneous, the proper activeness is to impose a fine on him in the amount equivalent to his 1 months salary, deductible from his retirement pay.

WHEREFORE, Jesus A. Moncayo is found GUILTY of unproblematic neglect of duty and is ORDERED to pay a FINE equivalent to one months bacon to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

And so ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., hold.

Chico-Nazario, J., on get out.

Endnotes:

---

¹ Rollo, pp. 128-129.

² Id. at 128.

ⁱⁱⁱ Ibid.

^four Id. at 137.

⁵ Id. at 132-136.

⁶ Id. at 135.

⁷ Id. at 74.

^eight Id. at 74-75.

⁹ Id. at 74.

¹⁰ Ibid.

^xi Id. at 139.

¹² Supra note 4.

¹³ Id. at 76-77.

¹⁴ Id. at 77.

¹⁵ Id. at 77.

¹⁶ Id. at 79.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Id. at eighty.

¹⁹ Id. at 25.

²⁰ Id. at 26.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid.

²³ Id. at 22-23.

²⁴ Id. at 13.

²⁵ Id. at nine-12.

²⁶ Id. at 9.

²⁷ Id. at 10-xi.

²⁸ Bulado five. Tiu, Jr., A.Chiliad. No. P-96-1211, 31 March 2000, 329 SCRA 308, 313, citingEstreller v. Manatad, Jr., A.M. No. P-94-1034, 268 SCRA 608 (1997), Gacho v. Fuentes, Jr., A.One thousand. No. P-98-1265, 291 SCRA 474 (1998).

²⁹ Sandoval v. Manalo, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1080, 22 Baronial 1996, 260 SCRA 611, 620, citing Zamora v. Jumamoy, A.One thousand. No. P-93-781, 238 SCRA 587 (1994), Dela Cruz v. Curso, A.Grand. No.MTJ-89-315, 221 SCRA 66 (1993), and Presado v. Genova, A.M. No. RTJ-91-657, 223 SCRA 489 (1993).

³⁰ Supreme Court Position Description Form, BC-CSC Course No.one.

³¹ Supreme Court Job Description Form.

³² Supra note 28.

³³ Rule 14, Department 22 (a) (Amended by CSC Memorandum Round No. 19, southward. 1999).

Dorsum to Domicile | Dorsum to Main

shorttriess.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2004septemberdecisions.php?id=794

Share this post