Galindo vs. Commission On Audit
Galindo vs. Commission On Audit
to avail of the fringe benefit under the car assistance plan in the
The COA’s Ruling amount of P358,004.03, while Pinto was able to avail the same
in the amount of P300,000.00.10
The COA found that the allegations against petitioners The COA relied on the basic rule in administrative cases
Galindo and Pinto are supported by substantial evidence, and that the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual
found them guilty of Grave Misconduct and Violation of administratively liable is substantial evidence, or that amount
Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations. The COA of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as
determined that petitioners Galindo and Pinto received adequate to justify a conclusion.
unauthorized allowances from Mendoza’s cash advances, and The COA found that the circumstances surrounding
availed of the MEWF’s car assistance plan. The COA also Mendoza’s cash advances, which were the source of the
found that Pinto received benefits and/or bonuses from the amounts given to the COA-MWSS personnel, are supported by
MWSS from 1999 to 2003. The COA imposed on petitioners documentary evidence. Most of the documentary evidence are
Galindo and Pinto the penalty of suspension for one year public documents, and thus admissible in evidence. Mendoza’s
without pay. straightforward declarations sufficiently established that Pinto
and Galindo were among the COA-MWSS personnel who Respondents’ receipt of bonuses and other benefits, including the
illegally received bonuses and benefits. The COA also found fringe benefits gained from their availment of CAP-MEWF
that acknowledgment receipts, being private documents, are constitutes misconduct. Jurisprudence defines misconduct as a
admissible in evidence as Mendoza herself prepared and then transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public
authenticated them during the hearing. The COA was
officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional
convinced that petitioners Pinto and Galindo were among the elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or disregard
recipients of Mendoza’s cash advances from 2005 to 2007. of established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence.
The COA ruled that the certified photocopies of the Indices (Valera v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 167278,
of Payments are public documents which do not require proof February 27, 2008) Corruption, as an element of Grave Misconduct,
of their due execution and genuineness to be admissible in consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully
evidence. and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit
_______________ for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of
others. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Miedes, Sr., G.R. No. 176409,
9 Id., at p. 45. February 27, 2008) As thoroughly discussed above, this Commission
10 Table 4, Investigation Report, Legal Services Sector, Fraud Audit and
holds that the misconduct attendant to the case at hand is grave.
Investigation Office, Commission on Audit, p. 11.
Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth in
a matter of fact relevant to one’s office or connected with the
performance of his duty. It implies a disposition to lie, cheat,
84
deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and
Galindo vs. Commission on Audit straightfor-
The COA found petitioners’ defense of their CAP-MEWF
availment untenable. The COA held that the funds managed by
MEWF remained public funds, and that the car loan contracts 85
were between the MWSS and availees. MEWF’s payment of VOL. 814, JANUARY 10, 2017 85
60% of the purchase price of the vehicles constitutes a grant of Galindo vs. Commission on Audit
fringe benefits. The prohibition of the grant of fringe benefits wardness. (Japson v. Civil Service Commission [CSC], G.R. No.
to COA personnel assigned in national, local, and corporate 189479, April 12, 2011) Under Section 3 of CSC Resolution No.
sectors is enunciated in COA Memorandum No. 89-584 dated 060538 dated April 4, 2006, dishonesty is serious when, among
9 January 1989. This prohibition was declared as state policy in others, the respondent gravely abused his authority in order to
Section 18, Republic Act No. 6758 (R.A. No. 6758), and commit the dishonest act, or the dishonest act exhibits [his] moral
implemented under COA Memorandum No. 99-066 dated 22 depravity. x x x.
x x x x
September 1999.
Accordingly, this Commission holds that the herein respondents
The COA reasoned: are guilty as charged — x x x; Respondents x x x Galindo, x x x
Pinto x x x for Grave Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Petitioners Galindo and Pinto, through their counsel Egargo
Office Rules and Regulations. Puertollano Gervacio Law Offices, received the COA’s
x x x x Resolution on 8 October 2013.13 Their counsel withdrew their
As to the rest of the respondents, this Commission metes upon services on 21 October 2013.14
them the penalty of suspension for one (1) year without pay, instead Galindo and Pinto filed, through their new counsel Walden
of dismissal from the service for humanitarian considerations.
James G. Carbonell, the present petition on 30 January 2014.
WHEREFORE x x x [r]espondents Anna Liza J. Galindo, x x x
Evelinda P. Pinto, x x x are found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct
and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations and are Assigned Errors
meted the penalty of SUSPENSION for one (1) year without pay.
They shall each refund the amount each received from the CAs of Petitioners Galindo and Pinto assigned the following errors:
Ms. Mendoza for CYs 2005 to 2007. Moreover, Respondents x x x A. The respondent [COA] erred in ruling that the 60% paid by the
Evelinda P. Pinto x x x are ordered to refund the amounts they MEWF for and in behalf of the herein petitioners as availees
received from the MWSS for the years 1999 to 2003 based on the constitutes a grant of fringe benefits, prohibited under COA
Indices of Payments in the total amount of P470,607.50 as indicated Memorandum No. 89-584 dated January 9, 1989 and Section 18,
in page 22 of herein discussion. Likewise, Respondents x x x R.A. 6758.
Galindo, x x x Pinto, x x x shall refund the amount paid by MEWF B. The respondent [COA] erred in ruling that the Prosecution had
for their car loans. established the required quantum of evidence by taking into account
The Directors, Human Resource Management Office, the circumstances surrounding the CAs of Ms. Mendoza which were
Administration Sector; Accounting Office, Planning, Finance and the source of the amounts given to COA-MWSS personnel and were
Management Sector; and the concerned Cluster Directors having supported with pieces of documentary evidence, most of which are
supervision over the herein respondents shall implement this private documents are admissible in evidence even without further
Decision. proof of their due execution and genuineness. (Antillon v. Barcelon,
Let a copy of this Decision form part of the 201 File of the No. L-12483, November 16, 1917)
respondents in this Commission.11 C. The respondent [COA] erred in ruling that the CAs of Ms.
_______________ Mendoza contained statements of the circumstances, the veracity of
which were not controverted, thus, these circumstances are deemed
11 Rollo, pp. 49-51. established.
_______________
86 12 Id., at pp. 53-57.
13 Id., at pp. 97, 110.
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 14 Id., at p. 111.
Galindo vs. Commission on Audit
Galindo and Pinto, along with the other respondents in the
administrative case, filed a motion for reconsideration, which 87
the COA denied in its Resolution12 dated 2 October 2013. VOL. 814, JANUARY 10, 2017 87
Galindo vs. Commission on Audit 15 Id., at p. 16.
16 See Cadena v. Civil Service Commission, 679 Phil. 165; 663 SCRA 160
D. The respondent [COA] erred in ruling that it is already (2012).
convinced that indeed the petitioners (COA personnel) received in
2005 to 2007 bonuses and other benefits from the CAs of Ms.
Mendoza which were specifically drawn for the purpose in the total 88
amount of P47,733,171.40. 15
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
_______________