d'6,C

@E@
c,vtL SgRvtcg
coMMtssroiv
Para ss tqumBAYAN

SAMBO, Nancy D. Number: 140?08

Re: Grave Misconduct;
Conduct Prejudicial to the Promutgateor 04 SIP ?0,|4
Best Interest of the Service;
Gross Neglect of Duty
(Petition for Review)
D-2014-04085

DECISION

Nancy D. Sambo, former Municipal Treasurer, Municipal Government of Magarao,

Camarines Sur, files an appeal (treated as Petition for Review) from the Decision No. 140010
dated January 16,2014 issued by the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO)
No. V, Legazpi City, finding her guilty of Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service, and Gross Neglect of Duty and imposing upon her the penalty of
dismissal from the service and the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture
of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from
taking civil service examinations.

The dispositive portion of CSCRO No. V Decision No. 140010 reads, as follows:

"WHEREFOfuE, Nancy D. Sambo is held LIABLE for the offenses of

Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Senice and
Gross Neglect of Duty and meted the penalty of Dismissal from the Service
and its accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public ffice and
barfrom taking civil service examinations, in accordance with the rules."

The grounds raised by Sambo are, as follows:

"1. The CSCRO 5 violated respondent's constitutional right to equal

protection of law, thus, the proceedings undertaken by the former in
charging and convicting the respondent ,s void for being
unconstitutional.

"2. The CSCRO 5 violated respondent's right to administrative due

process..."

The facts are, as follows:

On August 8, 2007 , Celso B. Julia, a resident of San Isidro, Municipality of Magarao,

Camarines Sur, filed a complaint against Sambo, Municipal Treasurer, Municipal

.
\\:

InaR.A.C.E, toSerae:Responsiue,Accessible,Courteous6vf,EffictiuePubltcseruice

E CSC Building, IBP Road, Constitution Hills, 1126 Quezon Ciry. A %I-79351931-79391931-8092. El cscphii@webmail.csc.gov.ph. r4 www.csc.gov.pl
Sa.mbo,...p.l2 of 9
x--------------------x

Government of Magarao, Camarines Sur, for Grave Misconduct, Being Notoriously

Undesirable, Gross Inexcusable Negligence, Dishonesty and Grave Abuse of Authority with
prayer for the issuance of Preventive Suspension Order with the Civil Service Commission
Regional Office (CSCRO) No. V.
Julia alleged that Sambo consented or permitted then
Magarao Mayor Lourdes A. Sefiart and Virgilio Seflar, casual employee, to make cash
advances by issuing several checks resulting in the misappropriation of public funds.

Acting on the complaint, through an Order dated August 15, 2007, the CSCRO No. V
required Sambo to submit her counter-affidavit to the complaint.

On October 2, 2007, Sambo submitted her Counter-Affidavit stating that she issued
the checks in payment of the cash advances of then Mayor Seffar after the necessary
documents (i.e- duly signed and approved disbursement vouchers) were submitted. In
addition, her duties and responsibilities as Municipal Treasurer are primarily related to taking
charge of the Treasury Office and taking custody and proper management of the funds of the
Municipal Government of Magarao.

After the conduct of preliminary investigation and finding a prima facie case, the
CSCRO No. V issued Resolution No. 1200435 dated September 12,2012 (Notice of Charge)
against Sambo for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service, and Gross Neglect of Duty committed, as follows:

"That on December 19, 2002, February 21, 2003, June 20, 2003, July
4, 2003, and July 22, 2003, Sambo permitted Lourdes A. Sefiar, then
Municipal Mayor, to make cash advances for P209,200.00, P100,000.00,
P 120,000.00, P280,000.00, and P I10,000.00, respectively.

"That on December 23, 2002, Sambo granted a cash advance to

Virgilio Seftar, a casual employee, amounting to P5,000.00 for his travelling
expenses.

"That the said cash advqnces were in violation of Commission on

Audit Circular No. 07-002 and Presidential Decree No. 1445."

In her Answer submiffed on October 8,2012, Sambo avened, as follows:

"6. That while it is true that she issued the checlcs . . such act is
totally in consonance with her duty as Municipal Treasurer . the Local
Government Code of 1991 has provided a hierarchy of action in the approval
of all disbursements of local governmentfunds and this can only be made after
the following fficials had earlier made their respective
certifications/approval . . .

tt
1st The local budget fficer certifies es to existence of
appropriation;
,t2nd
- The accountant has obligated said appropriation; and

" 3'd - Approval of the Local Chief Executive on the voucher.

I Jr.
The present mayor of Magarao is Salvador A. Seflar, \ I

\
Sambo,...p.l3 of 9
x--------------------x

". the foregoing fficials (ore) . answerable to their respective

certification or extent of participation on the voucher and its supporting
documents. ..
"7. A perusal of the disbursement voucher . . and its supporting
Allotment and Obligation Slip . . used by all government agencies would
conspicuously show that there are four (4) boxes intended for use of LGU
ffiitals concerned, each callingfor the certification or appropriate act which
should be ffirmed by a particular fficial of the concerned government
ogency . . ."
After the conduct of the formal investigation and the submission of the parties of their
respective position papers, the CSCRO No. V issued Decision No. 140010 dated January 16,
201+, which found Sambo guilty of Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service, and Gross Neglect of Duty and imposing upon her the penalty of
dismissal from the Service and the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture
of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from
taking civil service examinations.

On February 12, 2014, Sambo moved for the reconsideration of the Decision No.
140010 issued by the CSCRO No. V.

In Resolution No. 1400082 dated March 13,2014, the CSCRO No. V denied the
motion for reconsideration filed by Sambo.

On April Ll, 2014, Sambo filed an appeal (presently treated as Petition for Review)
from the Decision issued by the CSCRO No. V to the Commission.

In an Order dated April 30, 2014, the Commission directed the CSCRO No. V to
submit the records of the case.

On May 2,20l4,the CSCRO No. V complied with said Order.

In an Order dated June 20, 2014, the Commission directed Sambo to submit a
certified true of copy of her Position Description Form (PDF) containing the complete duties
and responsibilities attached to her Municipal Treasurer position to aid in determining
whether she it was correct to find her guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty.

However, until this time, she has not submitted said PDF. Thus, the Commission will
rely on available records.

The issues are, as follows:

1. Whether Sambo was denied of her right to equal protection of the laws;

2. Whether Sambo was denied of her right to due process of law; and

Whether there is substantial evidence to find Sambo guilty of Grave

Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Gross
Neglect
-'-Q---.-- of Duty.
J \
\]

\
Sambo,...p./4 of 9
x--------------------x

On the first issue, Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution expressly provides
that: 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." The equal protection guarantee
exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and
oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among
men/women, it does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons under
like circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced.2

In this case, the contention of Sambo that she was denied of her right to equal
protection of the laws since the other officials of the Municipal Government of Magarao
(Mayor, Accountant, and Budget Officer), who may also be liable, were not prosecuted and
found guilty of any offense by the CSCRO No. V has no basis.

In Efren L. Alvarez vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 192591, July 30,20t2,
the Supreme Court held, as follows:

"The prosecution of one guilt! person while others equally guilty are
not prosecuted, however, is not, by itself' a denial of the equal protection of
the laws, lV'here the fficial action purports to be in conformity to the statutory
classification, an eruoneous or mistaken performance of the statutory duty,
although a violation of the stotute, is not without more a denial of the equal
protection of the lows. The unlawfal administrution by officers of a statute
fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled
to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown
to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discriminution,
This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular
class or person, or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a
discriminatory design over another not to be inferred from the action itself.
But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing of
'clear and intentional discrimination.' Appellant has failed to show that, in
charging appellant in court, that there vlas a 'clear and intentional
discrimination' on the part of the prosecuting fficials. " (Emphasis supplied)

On the second issue, the Commission rules that Sambo was not denied of her right to
due process.

Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed
to do so, he/she cannot complain of deprivation of due process.' As long as the parties were
given the opportunity to be heard before judgment was rendered, the demands of due process
were sufficiently met.a Further, a formal or trial type hearing is not necessary at all times and
in all instances essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the
parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side ofthe controversy
at hand.5

In Vertudes vs. Buenaflor,6 the Supreme Court held, as follows:

2
Jose Miguel T. Arroyo vs. Department of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 199082, September 2, 2012
'Heirs of the Late Faustina Borres, et al. vs. Julius L. Abela, et al. (G.R. Nos. 131023, 131505, and 131768
(2007)
a
Bangalisan vs. Court ofAppeals, 280 SCRA 713 (1997)
t Llora Motors, Inc. vs. Drilon, 179 SCRA 175 (1989)
u
+28 scRR 2ro (2005)
Sambo,...p./5 of 9
x------------------x

"It is well-settled that the essence of due process in administrative

proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. This was clearly
satisfied in the case at bar, records show that petitioner not only gave her
swornwritten explanation of the charges against her during the initial stage of
the investigation, she also submitted: a) a sworn counter-ffidavit refuting the
charges against her, with all the attached annexes as evidence; b) a Motion to
Re-open the case with the BI; c) a Motion for Reconsideration and/or New
Trialwiththe BL.."
In this case, the CSCRO No. V issued a Notice of Charge dated September 12,2012
against Sambo for Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service,
and Gross Neglect of Duty. On October 8,2012, Sambo filed an Answer to the Notice of
Charge. In addition, Sambo was able to attend all the scheduled hearings (February 6,2013
and May 30, 2013) of the case. On November 28,2013, the appellant submitted her Position
Paper. Finally, Sambo was able to move for the reconsideration of the Decision issued by the
CSCRO No. V finding her guilty of the offenses of which she was charged. All the pleadings
she submiued were considered by the CSCRO No. V before it rendered a decision on the
case.

On the third issue, Misconduct has been defined as a transgression of some

established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by the public officer. Jurisprudence has likewise firmly established that the
'misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent
to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial
evidence.T

While Gross Neglect of Duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized

by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to
acto not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which
even inattentive and thoughtless persons never fail to take on their own property. In cases
involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and
palpable.s

On the other hand, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service covers a
wide range of acts or omissions, through which a government employee, either deliberately
or by mere ignorance or negligence, effectively compromises the integrity and efficiency of
the government service.e

At this point, it
must be emphasized that the quantum of evidence required in
administrative proceedings is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable

7
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) vs. Arwin T. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218, May 30, 2011
8
Jowett K. Golangco vs. Atty. Jone B. Fung, G.R. No. 147640 (October 12,2006)
t p. 60, Sourcebook on Administrative Offenses in the Civil Service (201 2 Revised Edition) q

\J
\
Sanbo,...p./6 of 9
x--------------------x

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally
reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.l0

It is noted that the CSCRO No. V dismissed the case against Sambo in relation to the
alleged cash advance of Virgilio Seflar for insufficient evidence." Thus, the discussion is
limited to the cash advance of former Magarao Mayor Lourdes A. Seflar.

In this case case, there is substantial evidence to show that Sambo has commiffed the
offenses of which she was charged of when she unlawfully allowed former Magarao Mayor
Lourdes A. Seflar to make cash advances in the amounts of P209,200.00, P100,000.00,
P120,000.00, P280,000.00, and P1 10,000.00, respectively.

Sections 339,,340, and 342.- Chapter 4, Title 5, Book II of the Local Government
Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160) provide, as follows:

"SEC. 33g. Cash Advances. - No cash advances shall be granted to

any local fficial or employee, elective or appointive, unless made in
accordance with the rules and regulations as the Commission on Audit may
prescribe.

"58C.340. Persons Accountable for Local Government Funds. -

Any fficer of the local government unit whose duty permits or requires the
possession or custody of local government funds shall be accountable and
responsible for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with the provisions of
thisTitle...
xxx
"SEC. 342.
Liability for Acts Done Upon Direction of Superior
Officer or Upon Participation of Other Department Heads or Officers of
Equivalent Rank. - Unless he registers his objection in writing, the local
treasurer. accountan4 budget fficer, or other accountable fficer shall not be
relieved of liability for illegal or improper use or application or deposit of
governmentfunds or property by reason of his hwing acted upon the direction
of a superior fficer, elective or appointive, or upon participation of other
department heads or fficers of equivalent rank. . ."

Moreover, Section 89 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 or the Government Auditing

Code of the Philippines provides that: "No cash advance shall be given unless for a legally
authorized specific purpose . . ."

Finally, Item 4 of COA Circular No. 97-002 provides, to wit: ". . . Elected officials
may be granted a cash advance only for their traveling expenses."

to
Brigido B. Paredes vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 169534 (July 30, 2007)
" Page 2 (paragraph 4) ofthe CSCRO No. V Decision dated 140010 dated January 16,2014
Sambo,...p.l1 of9
x--------------------x

From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that elective officials may be granted a cash
advance only for their travelling expenses.

In this case, records revealed that Sambo allowed the release of a check dated
December 19,2002 in favor of former Mayor Seffar for the cash advance in the amount of
P209,200.00 for the labor and materials to be used in the construction of flower pots. In
addition, the appellant allowed the issuance of checks, for the cash advances made by the
same official, the purposes of which were not stated in the disbursement vouchers, as follows:

DATE AMOTII\T
February 21,2003 P100.000.00
June 20,2003 Pi20.000.00
July 4,2003 P280,000.00
July 22,2003 P110,000.00

All told, Sambo illegally

allowed the release of the foregoing amounts since the
purposes mentioned do not relate to travelling expenses.

Mention must also be made that Sambo failed to perform her duties and
responsibilities as a treasurer when she illegally allowed the release the said amountso as
follows: l) Take custody and exercise proper management of the funds of the local
govemment unit concerned; and 2) Take charge of the disbursement of all local government
funds and such other funds the eustody of which may be entrusted to her by law or other
t
competent authorify.'

The Commission agrees with the findings of the CSCRO No. V, to wit:

" . . . SAMBO invokes good faith in affixing her signature in the

disbursement vouchers and was made after the other accountable fficers
have made their cotesponding approvals . . .

"SAMBO's defense would lead us to believe that it was ministerial on

her part to sign the disbursement voucher after the Budget Officer certified the
existence of the appropriation, the Accountant has obligated and
appropriation, and the approval of the Local Chief Executive on the voueher
has been made. An examination of the enumerated duties of a Treasurer
would however, reveal that it is incumbent upon the Treasurer, among others,
to advise the Mayor of the proper disposition of local funds, exercise proper
management of funds and take charge of the disbursement of public funds.
These functions are not ot all ministerial but presuppose an obligation on
SAMBO's part to determine the propriety of the disbursement being
requested. "

12
Section 470 (d), (2) and (3), Article II, Title 5, Book III of the Local Government Code ot trnt
\ ,

N
Sambo,...p.l8 of 9
x--------------------x

Finally, the CSCRO No. V properly imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service
with all the accessory penalties on Sambo pursuant to Section 46 A (2) and (3), B (8), Section
50 and Section 52 (A), Rule l0 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (RRACCS), 13 which provide:

"Section 46. ClassiJication of Offenses. - Administrative offinses with

corresponding penalties are classified into graye, less grave or light,
depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.

"A. Thefollowing grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal

from the service:
xxx
"2. Gross Neglect of Duty;

"3. Grave Misconduct;

xxx
"8. The following grme offenses shall be punishable by suspension
of six (6) months and one (1) day for the first offense and
dismissal from the service for the second offense:

xxx
"8. Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;

xxx
"Section 50. Penalty for the Most Serious Offinse. - If the
respondent is found guilty of two (2) or more charges or counts, the penalty to
be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the
rest shall be considered as oggravating circumstances.

xxx
"Section 52. Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain
Penalties. -
"a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it concellation of
eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual
disqualification from holding public ffice and bar from taking
civil service examinations. "

One final note, the procedural steps relating to the release of the cash advances to
former Magarao Mayor Lourdes A. Seflar involved several officials of the Municipality.
Therefore, the CSCRO No. V is directed to investigate the other officials (Budget Officer and
Accountant) who authorized the supporting documents for the cash advances of former
Mayor Seffar.

13
CSC Resolution No. 1101502 dated November 8, 201I
Sambo,...p./9 of 9
x--------------------x

WHEREFORE, the petition for review filed by Nancy D. Sambo, former Municipal
Treasurer, Municipal Government of Magarao, Camarines Sur, is hereby DISMISSED.
Accordingly, the Decision No. 140010 dated January 16,2014 issued by the Civil Service
Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) No. V, Legazpi City, finding her guilty of Grave
Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Gross Neglect of
Duty and imposing upon her the penalty of dismissal from the Service and the accessory
penalties of cancellation of eligibility, perpetual disqualification from holding public office,
bar from taking civil service examinations, and forfeiture of retirement benefits (except
accrued leave credits/terminal benefits and personal contributions to the GSIS, if any), is
AFFIRMED.

The CSCRO No. V is directed to investigate the other oflicials of the Municipal
Government of Magarao who authorized the supporting documents for the cash advances of
former Mayor Lourdes A. Sefiar.

Finally, the Commission deems it necessary to refer the case to the Office of the
Ombudsman (OMB) for it to consider the filing of appropriate criminal charges against
former Magarao Mayor Lourdes A. Seflar and the other responsible municipal officials.

Copies of this Decision shall be fumished the Commission on Audit-Municipal

Government of Magarao, Camarines Sur, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
and the Office of the Ombudsman for their reference and appropriate action.

Quezon City.

T.

MNIEVES L. OSORIO
Commissioner
Attested by:

, Q^*; ,(./4-,^1-
I
A-, DOLORES B. BONIFACIO
I Oirector IV
Commission Secretariat and Liaison Office

OLA3/Y I I (V-N)/CSLO/tisha
SAMBO-Dec (GM, C P B IS) D -2014-0408s
2014041 l -030