G.R. No. 171812 , December 24, 2008
Remia F. Boncalon, petitioner, vs. Ombudsman (Visayas) and COA-City Auditor’s Office of Bago City, Negros Occidental, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Remia F. Boncalon was a Cashier IV at the Bago City Treasurer’s Office. On November 25, 1997, a state auditor conducted an audit of her cash accounts, revealing a cash shortage of P1,023,829.56. The audit further discovered that an entry in Boncalon’s cashbook showing a deposit of P1,019,535.21 on October 31, 1997 was false, as deposits totaling that amount were actually made on November 25, 1997 (P200,000) and December 22, 1997 (P819,535.21). Consequently, Boncalon was administratively charged with dishonesty before the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas). She denied accountability, claiming she was only informed of the alleged shortage on October 1, 1998, after she had gone on a commuted leave and was cleared of money and property accountability. She also contended that the P819,535.21 was overlooked in her safe during the audit. The Ombudsman found her guilty of dishonesty and imposed the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from public office. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

1. Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding Boncalon’s dismissal from service on the ground of dishonesty?
2. Is the Ombudsman empowered to dismiss public officials and employees in administrative cases?

RULING

1. No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court found Boncalon guilty of dishonesty. The undisputed facts were: she had a duty to deposit P1,019,535.21 by October 31, 1997; the amount was not deposited on that date; the cashbook entry showing a deposit on October 31, 1997 was false; and the amount was deposited in two tranches weeks later. Her explanation that she overlooked bundles of money in her safe was deemed incredible and contradicted by her own certification that she produced all cash items (totaling only P47,106.14) to the auditor. The false entry, made to appear the money was already in the bank when it was not, manifested bad faith or gross negligence amounting to bad faith, constituting dishonesty. The Court also held she was not deprived of due process, as she was given opportunities to explain her side through letters and participation in the administrative proceedings.
2. Yes, the Ombudsman is empowered to dismiss public officials and employees. The Supreme Court affirmed its jurisprudence that under Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman has the authority to directly impose administrative penalties, including dismissal, in administrative disciplinary cases. This power is distinct from its recommendatory power under the Constitution. The penalty of dismissal carried with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service.