ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 38 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FOR ONE MONTH UPON LULU V. MACANDOG,
ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR LIVESTOCK, ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, REGION FIELD UNIT NO. 5
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed with the President Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC
or Commission) by Crisanto J. Ortega, charging respondent Lulu V.
Macandog, Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Agriculture
(DA), Regional Field Unit No. 5 (DA-RFU5), San Agustin, Pili, Camarines
Sur, with connivance in the overpayment of a contract between the DA
and the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM).
The findings of the Commission are herein quoted as follows:
"In
sum, complainant charges respondent and her co-employees at the DA-RFU5
with conspiracy in the overpayment of a contract worth P3,150,000.00
between the DA and the PRRM. The sum actually paid to PRRM totaled
P4,851,000.00. Complainant alleges that the overpaid sum of
(P1,701,000.00) was used by respondent and her cohorts for their own
ends before the said money was eventually returned by PRRM to the
account of the DA.
"In her Counter-Affidavit,
respondent did not controvert the charge of overpayment and averred the
following:
'4.
'5.
'xxx
'10.
xxx
"Considering the fact that the
parties do not dispute the return to the DA of the overpaid amount of
P1,701,000.00 about a month later after it was paid, the remaining
issue is whether respondent Macandog is culpable for the subject
overpayment and the allegedly delayed return of the amount so overpaid.
"A perusal of the evidence
presented by respondent shows that the controversy was investigated by
the DA. The Regional Director of DA-RFU5 created a Fact-Finding
Committee and the said Committee submitted its Report on August 22,
1995.
"The said Report stated thus:
"xxx
'It was gathered that on October
22, 1992, a "Contract for NGO Services" was entered into by and between
the DA and PRRM for the purpose of managing and coordinating the
Coastal Resources Management (CRM) component of the FOP in Lagoon Gulf. . in consideration of the amount of P2,835,000.00 . . . which was
made payable in six (6) different modes of payments.
'The following payments were as
follows:
'xxx
'4.
'5.
'It totaled in (sic) the amount
of P2,835,000.00 representing the full amount payable to PRRM under the
contract.
'It was however, noted that on
December 20, 1993, four (4) more vouchers were processed for payment in
duplication of the last four payments indicated above but embodied in
four different vouchers all dated December 4, 1992, as follows:
'This was the alleged
overpayment amounting to exactly P1,701,000.00 in favor of PRRM.
'Upon clarificatory inquiries,
it was shown that the vouchers used in the alleged overpayment were the
ones prepared and submitted in December of 1992 . . . They bore the
marks of regular vouchers and even bearing the initials from COA
representatives indicating that they were in order. However, these were
not considered for payment during the calendar year 1993 as they were
kept as filed by the Bookkeeper and instead payments corresponding on
(sic) the amounts thereon were made on staggered dates under currently
prepared vouchers upon due demands.
'Unfortunately those claim
vouchers were considered for payment at a time when the Bookkeeper was
not around to forewarn anybody that those were mere file vouchers,
although not clearly indicated on its (sic) face, . . . It was coupled
with the indications that enough funds were available for that purpose
to guarantee such payments, and during the time when everything was in
for the rush as occasional (sic) by the holiday season. It so
coincided, as in any other agency, when all possible payments of claims
are being facilitated for the closing of books of accounts and for the
year-end reports (sic).
'The alleged overpayment was
promptly and properly noticed or discovered by the Bookkeeper herself
when she already reported for work during the early part of January
1993, the ensuing year.
'Immediately, thereafter,
necessary representations were made to PRRM in Tabaco, Albay, although
it also noticed the overpayment, which facilitated the return of the
said amount in January 25, 1993 to the DA and correspondingly deposited
with the DA's depository bank (DBP Naga Branch the following day,
January 26, 1993. These are all evidenced by the records on hand.
'xxx
'In view of the foregoing facts
and circumstances, the committee is of the findings (sic) that no
intentional mistake was ever committed by the concerned DA personnel
and officials that caused no damage to the government. Although it was
admitted that such fact did actually happen yet classified as one of
those honest mistakes on the part of those directly misappreciated the
records in facilitating such payments. . .
'It must, however, be noted that
the least of such honest mistake (sic) can be attributed to those who
directly dealt with the records concerning such obligations, but
definitely not to those who merely and ceremoniously affixed their
signatures on the face of those vouchers but without direct access with
the necessary records appertaining thereto. These signatories merely
relied, as is usually the case in all similar situations, on the honest
counter-checking and certification made by those with direct access to
counter check directly with the records.'
"Granting that, as opined by the
Fact-Finding Committee in its Report, it is the Accounting Section of
DA-RFU5 which is primarily responsible for the overpayment subject of
this controversy, the Commission cannot fully exculpate respondent from
liability therefore.
"Respondent cannot simply and
conveniently point a finger at the Accounting Section and wash her
hands of the incident since she is the approving officer who signed the
vouchers involved in the overpayment. Respondent rests on the argument
that the affixing of her signature on the vouchers is a purely
ministerial act as she merely relied on the prior signatures of other
officers in the said documents. The contention cannot be upheld for
several reasons.
"First, the amount overpaid
P1,701,000.00 is by no means unsubstantial. In the absence of specific
internal control procedures, it is the lockout of respondent to
exercise a greater degree of care and prudence in approving monetary
disbursement and issuances, particularly those involving considerable
amounts.
"Second, an examination of the
four (4) disbursement vouchers 'inadvertently' used in the overpayment
shows that the years in the dates thereof all appear to have been
tampered with . . . the presence of such irregularities on the face of
the subject vouchers should have served as adequate notice to the
respondent to exercise greater caution before signing the said
documents. The slightest hint or suspicion of any irregularity should
be first looked into by the approving officer before any money is
released. Failure to do so amounts to neglect of duty.
"To sustain the justification
that the error of overpayment was made because everyone at DA-RFU5 was
preoccupied with facilitating the payment of numerous obligations for
purposes of closing the books of accounts and accomplishing the
year-end report is to condone . . . negligence. In the case at bar,
what occurred was not a innocuous mistake, but one that could have cost
the government P1.7 million. The accounting staff and approving
officers, by the very nature of their official duties, are tasked to be
precise and circumspect, especially on the matter of disbursements as
the same is, needless to say, a highly sensitive undertaking. It is
beyond comprehension how four (4) vouchers already paid could still be
utilized and processed anew if there were not something terribly wrong
with the procedure being followed, or if someone were not out to commit
a wrong-doing. As the approving officer, respondent was responsible for
reviewing the validity of the claims, the signatures and the
attachments to the vouchers. Had she truly done this, she would have
discovered that the vouchers she was being asked to sign had already
been paid. The respondent had the final say in the approval of those
vouchers. If she was not certain as to the regularity thereof, she
could have just ordered the preparation of the checks so they would be
included in the accounts settled for the year but withheld their
release for payment subject to the verification by the bookkeeper upon
her return. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent cannot hide
behind the defense that her signature in the subject vouchers were
purely ceremonial in nature.
"Third, respondent cannot
rightly say that no loss to the government resulted from the
overpayment on the ground that the same was timely discovered and the
money promptly returned to the coffers. Admittedly, the government did
not lose any interest during the one-month period it took to retrieve
the money considering that its account with DBP is a current one. . .
"Granting that what is adverted
to is potential and not actual loss, the damage or injury to the
government may nevertheless be classified as 'undue'. This is so
because the overpayment should not even have occurred at all. By the
overpayment, the government was needlessly exposed to the danger of
losing funds. . .
"In light of the foregoing, the
respondent is administratively liable for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY
considering that her negligence resulted in minimal actual damage to
the government and the error made was rectified within a relatively
short period of time.
"WHEREFORE, the Commission
hereby RESOLVES and so RECOMMENDS to the Office of the President the
SUSPENSION for six (6) months of respondent LULU V. MACANDOG, Assistant
Regional Director for Livestock, Administration and Finance of the
Department of Agriculture, Regional Field Unit No. 5, pursuant to
Sec. 22(a), Less Grave Offenses, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of E.O. 292, with a warning that the commission by
respondent of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.
"SO RESOLVED."
A thorough perusal of the records of this case as well as of the evidence presented by both parties leads this Office to no further conclusion than to affirm the findings of the Commission. However, I am not predisposed to imposing the maximum penalty for the offense in the absence of any serious damage arising therefrom.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the penalty of SUSPENSION FOR ONE (1) MONTH without pay is hereby imposed upon respondent Lulu V. Macandog, Assistant Regional Director for Livestock, Administration and Finance of the Department of Agriculture, Regional Field Unit No. 5, for simple negligence, the suspension to take effect upon her receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 20th day of November in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-eight.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.