G.R. No. 231120 , January 15, 2020
Radames F. Herrera, Petitioner, vs. Noel P. Mago, Simeon B. Villacrusis, and Jose R. Asis, Jr., Respondents.

FACTS

The Department of Budget and Management issued Local Budget Circular No. 103 granting an increase in Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) retroactive to January 1, 2013. The Sangguniang Bayan of Vinzons, Camarines Norte passed a Supplemental Budget and Appropriation Ordinance to cover the RATA increase for its members from January to June 2013. The Mayor vetoed part of the appropriation for exceeding the 45% statutory limitation on personal services expenditure, but the Sangguniang Bayan overrode the veto. Petitioner Vice-Mayor Radames Herrera, upon request from a former councilor, instructed the Municipal Accountant to prepare a payroll for RATA differentials for four former councilors. The Municipal Accountant, Municipal Budget Officer, and Municipal Treasurer all expressed reservations or refused to sign the obligation request and disbursement voucher, citing that the former councilors were no longer in active service and questioning the legality of the payment. Despite these objections, petitioner signed the disbursement voucher as agency head, resulting in the release of P76,800.00 to the four former councilors. Subsequently, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan declared the supplemental budget inoperative for exceeding the legal limit, and the Commission on Audit issued a Notice of Disallowance. The amount was returned. Respondents filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, which found petitioner guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and imposed the penalty of dismissal with accessory penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals correctly found petitioner administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The factual findings of the Ombudsman, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. Petitioner was guilty of Grave Misconduct for facilitating the release of the RATA differentials without following the mandatory procedure under Section 344 of the Local Government Code, which requires certification by the local budget officer, obligation by the local accountant, and certification of fund availability by the local treasurer before any disbursement. He proceeded despite the explicit objections of these officers, demonstrating a clear intent to violate the law and disregard established rules, which constitutes a willful wrong doing. His act also constituted Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, as it tarnished the integrity of his office. Good faith cannot be invoked as the circumstances clearly placed him on guard about the illegality of the payment. Under the rules, when an official is found guilty of multiple charges, the penalty for the most serious offense is imposed. Grave Misconduct is punishable by dismissal with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from public office, and a bar from taking civil service examinations. Therefore, the penalty of dismissal and its accessory penalties were correctly imposed.