GR 47191; (June, 1978) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-47191 June 27, 1978
ARTURO ACOLOLA, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO JR., Acting Chairman, Commission on Audit, General Auditing Office and HORACIO A. MARTINEZ, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arturo A. Acolola, a public auditor, was administratively charged on December 3, 1976, by private respondent Horacio A. Martinez, a contractor. The complaint alleged several acts of misconduct, including demanding a P24,000 plane fare and delaying official actions. Based on this complaint, the Commission on Audit’s Civil Security Office orchestrated an entrapment operation on December 15, 1976. The operation succeeded, and petitioner was apprehended by the Philippine Constabulary while receiving P2,000 in marked bills as bribe money from Martinez at the Seaside Hotel. Following this, a formal administrative charge was filed, and petitioner was preventively suspended.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Chairman of the Commission on Audit acted within his jurisdiction and without grave abuse of discretion in summarily dismissing petitioner from the service pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 807.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled affirmatively, upholding the summary dismissal. The legal basis is Section 40 of Presidential Decree No. 807 (The Civil Service Decree), which allows summary dismissal without a formal investigation under specific conditions, including when the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong. The Court found that the circumstances of petitioner’s case squarely fell within this provision. Petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto receiving bribe money in a valid entrapment operation, constituting direct and overwhelming evidence of guilt for a grave offense. The seriousness of the charge of bribery, coupled with the incontrovertible nature of the evidence, justified the immediate and summary action taken by the disciplining authority to protect the integrity of the public service. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s position that, given the strength of the evidence, the respondent Chairman had no other recourse but to apply the summary dismissal procedure. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the temporary restraining order was lifted.