Case Digest: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS 508 SCRA 72 (2006)

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS 508 SCRA 72 (2006)

Commission on Audit, in response to anonymous complaint alleging that certain municipal employees of Infanta, Pangasinan allegedly committed graft and corruption, conducted a fraud audit. The audit team found that the Municipal Treasurer granted various loans to Municipal Employees in violation of COA Circular 90-331. One of the municipal employees to whom loans were extended was Luzviminda M. Maniago (Luzviminda). A complaint against Luzviminda was then filed before the Office of the Mayor for violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). In her Answer, Luzviminda claimed that the loan was extended to her by the Municipal Treasurer in the latter‘s personal capacity. The then Acting Mayor Charlito M. Kho (Kho), found Luzviminda guilty of Grave Misconduct on the basis of the “Fraud Audit Report” and dismissed her from the service. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) modified Kho‘s resolution, finding her guilty only of Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and accordingly modified the penalty to suspension of one year. Luzviminda filed a motion for reconsideration of said judgement, but the same has been denied. Hence, Luzviminda filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a Petition for Certiorari. The CA reversed the CSC decision and ordered the reinstatement of Luzviminda. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether there is substantial evidence to hold Maniago guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

HELD:

It bears noting that an audit team, Luzviminda herself, following which it confirmed that the amount of loan granted, formed part of the “cash shortage” of the Municipal Treasurer. And that the decision of Kho, was based not only on the Fraud Audit Report, but also on Luzviminda‘s Answer to the complaint wherein she did not deny having secured a loan, her only defense being that the loan did not involve public funds, which defense does not deserve consideration in the absence of any iota of proof thereof.
The absence of a hearing did not deprive Luzviminda of due process. She was given the opportunity to file, and she did file, an Answer to complaint against her. She was also afforded the opportunity to appeal to the CSC from the September 20, 2000 Resolution of Acting Mayor Kho.
Luzviminda having obtained a loan for her personal use out of municipal funds, through the active intercession of the Municipal Treasurer, cannot be countenanced. Although already paid in full, said loan resulted in the diversion of municipal funds for purposes other than what the amount was supposed to be appropriated for in the municipality. Thus, public service was prejudiced.