Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84120:59421&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:34:46+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 204757, March 17, 2015 - ATTY. JANET D. NACION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, MA. GRACIA PULIDO-TAN, JUANITO ESPINO AND HEIDI MENDOZA, Respondents.
ATTY. JANET D. NACION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, MA. GRACIA PULIDO-TAN, JUANITO ESPINO AND HEIDI MENDOZA, Respondents.
This resolves the Petition for Certiorari1 filed by petitioner Atty. Janet D. Nacion (Nacion) to assail the Decision2 dated June 14, 2012 and Resolution3 dated November 5, 2012 of respondent Commission on Audit (COA), finding her guilty of grave misconduct and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.
Availing of the Multi-Purpose Loan Program – Car Loan.
Based thereon and upon the recommendation of the Director, FAIO-LSS, this Office finds sufficient basis to administratively charge you with Grave Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations which are grounds for administrative action under the Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission finds Director Janet D. Nacion GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations proceeding from the same act of receiving unauthorized allowances and other fringe benefits. Accordingly, she is meted the penalty of one (1) year suspension without pay effective upon receipt of this Decision, immediate refund of the amount of P73,542.00, and return of the lot she obtained under the MWSS Employees Housing Project, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
Unyielding, Nacion moved to reconsider, but her plea was denied by the COA in a Resolution dated November 5, 2012.19 Hence, this petition.
The core issue for the Court’s resolution is: whether or not the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in finding Nacion guilty of grave misconduct and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.
To support her petition against the COA, Nacion invokes due process as she argues that the records during her tenure with the MWSS should not have been included by the audit team in its investigations, as no office order covering it was issued by the COA Chairman. Furthermore, the documentary evidence considered by the Fraud Audit and Investigation Office (FAIO) did not constitute substantial evidence to prove the commission of the offenses with which she was charged.
Upon review, the Court holds that no such grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the COA for the procedure it observed, its factual findings and conclusions in Nacion’s case.
In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is the opportunity to explain one’s side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense. The demands of due process are sufficiently met when the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.23 Given this and the circumstances under which the rulings of the COA were issued, the Court finds no violation of Nacion’s right to due process. As the Office of the Solicitor General correctly argued, the constitution of a separate fact-finding team specifically for Nacion’s case was not necessary for the satisfaction of such right.
(1) Administrative proceedings may be commenced against a subordinate official or employee of the Commission by the Chairman motu proprio, or upon sworn, written complaint of any other person. (Sec. 38 [a], PD 807).
The power of the COA to discipline its officials then could not be limited by the procedure being insisted upon by Nacion. Neither is the authority of the Chairperson to commence the action through the issuance of the formal charge restricted by the requirement of a prior written complaint. As may be gleaned from the cited provision, a written complaint under oath is demanded only when the administrative case is commenced by a person other than the COA Chairperson.
Contrary to Nacion’s claim, the COA also did not act beyond its jurisdiction when her case was considered by the FAIO investigating team, notwithstanding the fact that the office order which commanded an inquiry upon MWSS personnel merely referred to alleged unauthorized receipt of bonuses and benefits from the agency by Atty. Norberto Cabibihan (Atty. Cabibihan) and his staff. Since Nacion’s stint in MWSS was before Atty. Cabibihan’s, she argued that the team should not have looked into the records and circumstances during her term. In including benefits received during her term, Nacion claimed that the investigating team acted beyond its jurisdiction and deprived her of the right to due process.
The contention fails to persuade; a separate office order was not necessary for the audit team’s investigation of Nacion’s case. It should be emphasized that prior to the issuance of the formal charge, the investigations conducted by the team were merely fact-finding. The crucial point was the COA’s observance of the demands of due process prior to its finding or decision that Nacion was administratively liable. The formation of a separate fact-finding team that should look specifically into Nacion’s acts was not necessary to satisfy the requirement. The formal charge was as yet to be issued by the COA Chairperson, and Nacion’s formal investigation commenced only after she had filed her answer to the charge. It was undisputed that Nacion, despite a chance, did not request for such formal investigation, a circumstance which the COA later considered as mitigating. In any case, she was still accorded before the COA a reasonable opportunity to present her defenses, through her answer to the formal charge and eventually, motion for reconsideration of the COA’s decision.
The Court also finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA in holding Nacion administratively liable for the offenses with which she was charged.
It is settled that the factual findings of administrative bodies are controlling when supported by such substantial evidence.26 In resolving the present petition, the Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from this general rule. Three separate acts were found to have been committed by Nacion, all sufficient to support the COA’s finding of grave misconduct and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.
Section 18. Additional Compensation of Commission on Audit Personnel and of Other Agencies. – In order to preserve the independence and integrity of the Commission on Audit (COA), its officials and employees are prohibited from receiving salaries, honoraria, bonuses, allowances or other emoluments from any government entity, local government unit, and government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial institution, except those compensation paid directly by the COA out of its appropriations and contributions.
An observance of the prohibition is mandatory given its purpose vis-à-vis the roles which COA personnel are required to perform. Given their mandate to look after compliance with laws and standards in the handling of funds by the government agencies where they are assigned to, COA personnel must prevent any act that may influence them in the discharge of their duties. In the present case, the receipt of the subject benefits and allowances was evidently in violation of the prohibition under the aforequoted Section 18. Nacion should have been wary of her actions and the prohibitions pertinent to her functions, especially as they affected the expenditure of MWSS funds which she was duty-bound to eventually examine.
The availment of the loans likewise merited administrative sanctions. Nacion herself cited in her pleadings before the COA some past cases that involved COA officials, who were disciplined for availing of car plans in other offices. Nacion was also covered by COA Resolution No. 86-50, also known as the Code of Ethics for Government Auditors, which demanded from her a high degree of integrity and professionalism, the avoidance of conflict of interest, and resistance to temptations that might be prejudicial to the discharge of her duties and to public interest. Otherwise, she would be placed in an odd situation requiring her review of transactions and expenditures from which she had directly benefited from.
The primary function of an auditor is to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures of government funds. To be able properly to perform their constitutional mandate, COA officials need to be insulated from unwarranted influences, so that they can act with independence and integrity. x x x The removal of the temptation and enticement the extra emoluments may provide is designed to be an effective way of vigorously and aggressively enforcing the Constitutional provision mandating the COA to prevent or disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Sereno, C.J., on official leave.
Jardeleza, J., no part in view of his participation in the Office of the Solicitor General.
2 Signed by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan, Commissioner Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Commissioner Heidi L. Mendoza; id. at 32-43.
14 The Administrative Code of 1987.
17 Extra Christmas Bonus for CY 2001 - P10,000.00, Mid-Year Bonus for CY 2002 - P26,771.00, Mid-Year Bonus for CY 2003 - P26,771.00, and Anniversary Bonus for CY 2003 - P10,000.00; id. at 33.
20Arnaldo M. Espinas, Lillian N. Asprer, and Eleanora R. De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 198271, April 1, 2014.
21 G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013, 702 SCRA 566.
22 Id. at 580, citing Yu v. Judge Reyes-Carpio, G.R. No. 189207, June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 341, 348.
23Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 165399 and 165475, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 142, 155.
24 Rules of Procedure in the Investigation of Administrative Cases against Personnel of the Commission on Audit. Dated April 27, 1976.
25Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) v. Zaldarriaga, 635 Phil. 361, 367-368 (2010).
26Gonzales III v. Office of the President of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196231, September 4, 2012, 679 SCRA 614, 661.
28See Atty. Villareña v. The Commission on Audit, 455 Phil. 908 (2003).
29 1st P200,000.00 – 0%; Over P200,000.00 – 3%; Over P500,000.00 – 6%.; rollo, p. 38.
30 455 Phil. 908 (2003).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.