G.R. No. 191946. December 10, 2019.) CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Represented by ANICIA

G.R. No. 191946. December 10, 2019.
] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION represented by ANICIA

MARASIGANDE LIMA and CESAR D. BUENAFLOR , petitioners, vs. ROGELIO L. BERAY, MELISSA T. ESPINA
and VIOLETA R. TADEO, respondents.
[G.R. No. 191974. December 10, 2019.] MELISSA T. ESPINA and VIOLETA R. TADEO , petitioners, vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, represented by ANICIA MARASIGAN-DE LIMA and CESAR D. BUENAFLOR,
respondents
Facts:
These consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari assail the August 28, 2009 Decision 2 of the (CA)
which found (Beray) guilty of simple neglect of duty, and (Espina) and (Tadeo) guilty of ineffeciency in
the performance of their official duties, and its March 30, 2010 Resolution which denied the motions for
partial reconsideration respectively filed by the (CSC), and Espina and Tadeo.
Respondent Beray was the Chief of the Subsidiary and Revenue Section of the (DPWH) whose one of the
duty was to supervise the recording and control of the Notice of Cash Allocation issued by the DBM for
the cash requirements of the Office. He was also vested with authority to sign for the chief accountant's
Requests for Obligation and Allotment (ROAs), and Disbursement Vouchers (DVs) for payment of
supplies, materials, furniture and equipment. Espina and Tadeo were both Accountant III assigned at the
Bookkeeping Section. Their duties included controlling the allotment releases, recording of accounting
entries in Box B of the DV, maintaining Project Cost Sheets of project assignments, and preparing the
Journal and Analysis of Obligation.
Sometime in January 2002, DPWH created a committee through DO 15 to investigate the alleged
corruption which was exposed in newspaper articles. As a result, a Complaint was filed on July 2002
against several employees of the DPWH Central Office including Beray, Espina, and Tadeo. The
complaint arose from anomalous transactions involving the alleged emergency repair of a Nissan Pick-
up.
Beray approved the reimbursement of the emergency repair and purchases of spare parts of vehicle
TAG 211 even when the spare parts enumerated on the four Requisition for Supplies and Equipment
forms (RSEs) cannot be considered as emergency in nature.
Tadeo, on the other hand, charged the amount of P24,550.00 for the repair of service vehicle against
Capital Outlay for Roads, Bridges and Highways for ADB-PMO Projects in violation of Section 20 of the
(GAA). Similarly, Espina improperly charged the expenses for the emergency repair of service vehicle
against Capital Outlay for Roads, Bridges and Highways for Rural Road Projects in violation of Section 20
of the General Provisions of the GAA. Thus, Beray, Espina, and Tadeo, together with other employees,
were formally charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial
to the interest of the service.
DPWH find the Beray, Espina, and Tadeo found guilty of gross neglect of duty. CSC affirmed the decision
of the DPWH but it held that Beray was not only liable for gross neglect of duty but also for grave
misconduct. CA CA affirmed the ruling of the CSC that Espina and Tadeo were liable for inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of their functions as Accountant III. As regards Beray, the appellate
court held that he was only liable for simple neglect of duty.
Issues:
(a) Whether Beray's acts constituted simple neglect of duty, and;
(b) Whether Espina and Tadeo committed inefficiency in the performance of their official duties
Ruling:
(a) No. A thorough review of the records shows that Beray is guilty not of simple neglect of duty but of
gross neglect of duty, a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense. It is the
responsibility of Beray to supervise his subordinates and to make sure that they perform their
respective functions in accordance with the law. As Chief of the Subsidiary and Revenue Section of
the DPWH, his function, among others, is to supervise the recording and control of the Notice of
Cash Allocation issued by the DBM for the cash requirements of the Office. He exercised a delegated
authority to sign, on behalf of the Chief Accountant, payment of supplies, materials, furniture and
equipment not exceeding P200,000.
In the case at bench, the amount stated in the ROA was altered from P24,980.00 to P269,350.00.
Interestingly, there were no counter-signatures affixed to the ROA. The apparent absence of the
counter-signature in the ROA should have caught the attention of Beray and led him to be more
cautious to its approval. Beray should have made the necessary inquiry to determine the grounds
for the alteration and the author thereof instead of merely relying on his subordinates. To stress, he
should have personally examined the truth and authenticity of the amount indicated therein, who
made the alteration, and the reason for the alteration. He should have affixed his signature only
after checking the completeness and propriety of the same. More importantly, the nature of Beray's
position requires that he should be meticulous in the approval of disbursement of public funds and
to be more circumspect in examining the documents for his approval. He should have exercised
utmost care before a6xing his signature for approval of the ROA which contained alterations. While
the amount involved is not humungous compared to other government transactions, the fact still
remains that taxpayers' money was spent and at the expense of the government. 26 Indeed, a
"public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to
the people." On the issue of whether Beray exceeded his delegated authority when he signed the
ROA amounting to P269,350.00, the Court answers in the a6rmative. As held by the CSC, the DPWH
DO 42 series of 1988 and other amendatory DOs were clear that his authority to sign or certify
section B of the ROA in behalf of the Chief Accountant is limited only to amounts involving payment
of and for expenses P200,000.00 and below. As such, if there was any ambiguity to the same, it was
his duty as well as the other officers to seek clarification as to who are these higher authorities being
referred to in the Memorandum. Regrettably, Beray failed to prove that he exerted any diligent
effort to determine the appropriate higher authority. What Beray simply posited was that he
believed that it was enough to get the approval of the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Equipment
(BOE) whom he contemplated as the higher authority referred to in the Memorandum. The Court
agrees with the findings of the CSC that Beray should be meted the severe penalty of dismissal from
service. He is guilty of gross neglect of duty as he miserably failed to efficiently and effectively
discharge his functions and obligations. His acts of heavily depending on his subordinates without
carefully examining the documents presented to him for disbursement of funds clearly exhibit his
flagrant and culpable unwillingness to perform his o6cial duties with the exactitude required of him.
(b) the Court holds Espina and Tadeo liable for inefficiency and incompetence. Their acts of
summarizing various DVs into a single ROA coupled with the absence of supporting documents, and
the failure to secure the approval of the higher authority in charging the reimbursement of the
emergency repairs against the Engineering and Administrative Overhead Allocation show that they
were ine6cient and incompetent in the performance of their functions as Accountant III. They failed
to exercise the required extraordinary care in handling the accounting of public funds. Espina and
Tadeo failed to make a detailed accounting of the expenses incurred for emergency repairs of the
various service vehicles.

G.R. No. 191946. December 10, 2019.) CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Represented by ANICIA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 191946. December 10, 2019.) CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Represented by ANICIA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 191946. December 10, 2019.) CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Represented by ANICIA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 191946. December 10, 2019.

] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION represented by ANICIA

(a) Whether Beray's acts constituted simple neglect of duty, and;

You might also like