PAGUIO VS.

DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN
(G.R NO. 232321. August 14, 2017

(Engr. Alex C. Paguio, General Manager, vs. Office of the Deputy

Ombudsman for Luzon and Jay B. Avellana).

Before Us is a petition for certiorari  under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,

assailing the September 22, 2016 Decision [1] and March
27, 2017 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136601.
The assailed rulings affirmed the November 27, 2013 Decision [3] of the Office
of the Ombudsman in OMB-L-A-ll-0149-C finding petitioner Alex C. Paguio
administratively liable for simple misconduct.

Factual Antecedents

Petitioner is the General Manager of Pagsanjan Water District (PAGWAD), a

government-owned and controlled corporation. As such, petitioner is duty-
bound to represent PAGWAD in several official functions in different locations
outside of the office. For this purpose, a service vehicle assigned to the
Administrative Division of PAGWAD is being used to service the Office of the
General Manager, as no service vehicle is especially assigned to the said
office or to the General Manager himself. When the service vehicle is
unavailable, PAGWAD is left with no recourse but to hire a private vehicle and
pay for a fixed rental fee per trip. Thus, to allegedly save government funds,
petitioner opted to use his daughter's private vehicle on several occasions
whenever the office service vehicle was unavailable.

On February 11, 2011, an administrative complaint was filed before the

Office of the Ombudsman, charging petitioner with dishonesty and
misconduct due to, among others, using the funds of PAGWAD to purchase
gasoline for his personal private vehicle from March to July 2008, even as he
already receives his regular Representation and Transportation Allowance
(RATA) to cover the costs of his official travels. Petitioner was allegedly
reimbursed gasoline expenses during the said period instead of deducting the
cost from his transportation allowance, in violation of 3.1.1.8 of Commission
on Audit (COA) Circular No. 96-004.

Ruling of the Ombudsman

On November 27, 2013, the Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding

petitioner liable for simple misconduct in using government money to refuel a
private vehicle and suspended the latter for a period of one month and one
day, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding substantial evidence to hold
respondent, ALEX C. PAGUIO, administratively liable for Simple Misconduct, this
Office hereby imposes upon him the penalty of SUSPENSION FOR ONE (1) MONTH
AND ONE (1) DAY without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the acts
complained of shall be dealt with more severely. In case respondent is already
retired from service or if the principal penalty cannot be enforced for any reason,
the alternative penalty of FINE equivalent to One Month's Salary to be paid to this
Office be imposed upon him.

The Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Directors of the Pagsanjan
Water District are hereby directed to implement this DECISION immediately upon
receipt pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7, as amended,
in relation to OMB Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2006, dated 11 April
2006, and to promptly inform this Office of the action taken thereon.

SO ORDERED.[4]
Petitioner moved for, but was denied, reconsideration of the Ombudsman's
Decision in an Order[5] dated May 29, 2014. Thus, petitioner elevated the
case via  a petition for review to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the Ombudsman's findings that

petitioner violated the prohibition on using government funds to refuel a
private vehicle. He loaded gasoline to his daughter's vehicle in various
amounts from April to July 21, 2008, which he was able to reimburse and
without the reimbursement being charged against his transportation
allowance. Thus, petitioner received double compensation when he collected
his full transportation allowance and the reimbursement for the gasoline
expense incurred for the private vehicle. Moreover, petitioner failed to
adduce proof that the gasoline procured with public funds was actually solely
used for official purposes only.[6]

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the same in its
January 16, 2017 Resolution. Hence, this petition.

Issue

Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction in affirming the Ombudsman finding him liable for
simple misconduct.

Our Ruling

The petition is denied.

At the outset, Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that a party seeking the writ
whether for certiorari,  prohibition, or mandamus must be able to show that
his or her resort to such extraordinary remedy is justified by the absence of
an appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.[7] Here, no such satisfactory explanation nor allegation was proffered
by the petitioner which would justify the resort to the remedy
of certiorari. On this ground alone, the petition should be dismissed.

In any event, the petition is still dismissible for lack of merit.

It is a settled rule that findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are
conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due
respect and weight, especially when, as in this case, they are affirmed by the
CA.[8] Here, both the Office of the Ombudsman and the CA are in accord in
finding that petitioner indeed used government funds in fueling a private
vehicle. Petitioner himself does not deny that PAGWAD paid for the fuel for
his vehicle whenever it was being used by officers and employees of the
water district.[9] He, however, claims that such practice does not contravene
the COA rules and regulations considering that no service vehicle is assigned
to him; hence, he is still entitled to receive his RATA.

Petitioner's justification is clearly tangential to the main issue. The Office of

the Ombudsman's finding of simple misconduct against the petitioner is
anchored on his receipt of reimbursements for the fuel costs of his
vehicle even while he was also receiving his RATA. This, as correctly
pointed out by the CA, is in palpable violation of Sections 3.1.1.7 and 3.1.1.8
of the COA Circular No. 96-004, which respectively provide:
3.1.1.7 In cases where government vehicles are used in the travel, the officials and
employees concerned are not entitled to the transportation expenses.

3.1.1.8 To ensure that government funds and property are used only for official
purposes, no reimbursement of the cost of gasoline and oil shall be
allowed if a private vehicle is used. However, the officials and employees
concerned shall be entitled to the reimbursement of the equivalent cost
of the customary mode of transportation. Under no circumstances should fuel
be issued to privately owned motor vehicles. (Emphasis supplied)

The language of the foregoing COA circular

brooks no argument. No reimbursement of the cost of gasoline and oil shall
be allowed when a private vehicle is used, and this proscription applies
regardless of whether or not a public official or employee is provided with a
service vehicle. As correctly observed by the court a quo,  petitioner, in effect,
received double compensation by receiving his RATA in full and  by being
reimbursed for his gasoline expenses for his vehicle, which is in contravention
of Section 8, [10] Article IX-B of the Constitution.[11]

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA,

the instant Petition is DISMISSED. The September 22, 2016 Decision and
March 27, 2017Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. SP No. 136601
are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

 Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive

[10]

additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by

law, nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present,
emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.