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.
Search for
www.chanrobles.com:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 306 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE OF PROVINCIAL
TREASURER OF LANAO DEL SUR HADJI MACMOD DALIDIG WITH FORFEITURE OF ALL
BENEFITS UNDER THE LAW
This Administrative case was initiated at
the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption (the
Commission, for brevity) through a complaint filed by a certain Datu
Halil Alawi of Banggolo, Marawi City, attaching thereto a copy of
Special Audit Report of the Commission on Audit (COA) Central Office,
Quezon City, docketed as SAO Report No. 93-03 dated January 28, 1994.
Said report evaluates the utilization of the 1991 ARMM Seed Money
directly released to the Provincial Government of Lanao del Sur.
The complaint cites the
following officials of Lanao del Sur as respondents: Hadji Macmod
Dalidig, Provincial Treasurer; Engr. Sebanah D. Tomawis, Provincial
Engineer; and Engr. Bocali Balt, Assistant Provincial Engineer. They
are charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service for their failure to account for
government funds amounting to P83,300,802.55. Among the respondents,
however, Mr. Dalidig is the lone presidential appointee, he having been
designated Acting Provincial Treasurer of Lanao Del Sur on January 31,
1985 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his counsel having
confirmed Mr. Dalidig's retention as Provincial Treasurer of Lanao del
Sur in his Manifestation and Motion received by this Commission on
February 9, 1996. Absent his showing of a new appointment by the
Minister of Finance, he is deemed to be a presidential appointee.
Thus, only Mr. Dalidig was
required to file his counter-affidavit to respond to the following
specific findings in SAO Report No. 93-03:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
On February 13, 1995, respondent
Dalidig, thru counsel, filed a motion to Suspend Proceedings on the
ground that SAO Audit Report Nos. 93-03 and 93-06 (Review of the
findings in 93-03) which are bases of the complaint are still on appeal
with the COA en banc. Respondent reasoned out that the appeal suspends
the effects of said SAO reports and these not being final and
executory, cannot be the legal bases for the administrative
investigation of Datu Alawi's complaint.
In its Order of February 17,
1995, the Commission denied respondent Dalidig's Motion to Suspend
Proceedings on the Ground that the administrative proceedings conducted
by it are independent and separate from the appeal to the COA en banc.
In his counter-affidavit
submitted to the Commission on March 15, 1995, respondent alleged the
following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Respondent insists that his only
participation in the disbursement of the subject 1991 ARMM Seed Money
was signing the covering disbursement vouchers certifying to the
following: (a) the availability of funds; (b) the proper certification
of the expenditure; (c) submission of supporting documents appearing
legal and proper; and (d) use of proper account codes.
To bolster his claim of
regularity of the transactions respondent attached to his
Counter-Affidavit, supra, more than three hundred (300) different
disbursement vouchers (pp. 296-663 of case records) covering the
numerous transactions involving the 1991 ARMM Seed Money. In support
thereof, he also attached approximately sixty (60) various Statements
of Work Accomplished (SWA). No other supporting documents were
submitted.
In his Supplemental Affidavit,
dated November 17, 1995, (pp. 218-223 of case records) respondent
claims that after a voucher is signed or passed in audit by the
Provincial Auditor concerned, the supporting documents thereof are
attached and retained by the Provincial Auditor's Office and only the
approved original copy of the voucher is returned to the Office of the
Provincial Treasurer for issuance of the corresponding check by the
Provincial Cashier. Respondent further claims that the supporting
documents which were retained by the Provincial Auditor's Office were
submitted to the Special Audit Team together with the vouchers. In
support thereof respondent submitted the affidavit of Usman Salic of
the Provincial Auditor's Office of Lanao del Sur (p. 196 of case
records).
Respondent asserts that after
having served the government for many years as an accountable officer,
he did not think it necessary to keep xeroxed copies of the supporting
documents for all the disbursement vouchers his office had processed.
His stint as Municipal Treasurer, Chief Property Custodian, Assistant
Provincial Treasurer of Lanao del Sur, OIC-City Treasurer's Office of
Marawi City and OIC-City Treasurer's Office of Iligan City surely have
prepared him for this gigantic task of disbursing the tremendous amount
of money intended for the improvement and upliftment of his people in
Lanao del Sur.
In an attempt to justify his
position, respondent defends his approval of the various disbursement
vouchers by stating that the said documents were pre-audited, meaning
that payment of the vouchers were affected only after these were
approved for payment by the Provincial Auditor.
The incontrovertible fact,
however, is that the disbursement vouchers were signed only by the
Provincial Auditor after the first five (5) boxes thereon were signed
by the proper signatories including respondent himself, as the fourth.
It is important to state that the Provincial Treasurer is the first
official among the five signatories tasked with the responsibility of
reviewing the supporting documents to a particular disbursement voucher
to ensure that these are legal and proper. That responsibility includes
the duty to ensure that said supporting documents are complete.
In any case, in his
above-mentioned supplemental affidavit, respondent enumerated the
supporting documents required for specific transactions and which, when
lacking, would render the transaction not ready for payment, viz:
a.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
b.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
At the hearing of July 17, 1995,
the COA auditors presented voluminous documents and pictures which
served as the bases for the SAO Reports. Respondent, thru counsel,
cross-examined Ms. Heidi Mendoza, team leader of the second Special
Audit team, and Ms. Priscilla Cruz, COA Auditor, on said documents.
Upon a detailed scrutiny of the
said supporting documents (vouchers), the Commission discovered that
the same were insufficient. As correctly reported by the COA Auditors,
the various disbursement vouchers were supported by incomplete
documents and there were disbursement vouchers allowing 25-50%
mobilization fee or beyond the 15% allowed by PD 1594 and COA rules.
To cite a few, the following
confirm the findings in SAO Report No. 93-03:
A.
1.
1.
2.
3.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
4.
5.
1.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Respondent never submitted any supporting document for the disbursement vouchers he presented as part of his exhibits. His supplemental affidavit and memorandum mention that pictures were taken by the first Inspection Team to prove actual inspection of the project sites. However, those pictures were not submitted to refute the evidence of non-implementation as recorded by the pictures taken by the Second Special Audit Team. Obviously, his claim that the supporting documents were retained by the Provincial Auditor cannot negate the actual state of the disbursement vouchers as submitted by the COA Auditors which were mostly incomplete.
Sec. 189 of the Revised Manual of Instructions to Treasurers describes the treasurer as the officer primarily accountable for government funds and property. As such, he is by law authorized to make such necessary steps to require any person responsible to him for such funds and property to keep proper records and to make corresponding reports for his information and protection. His better judgment should have forewarned him to keep copies of the supporting documents on file for his protection.
Respondent explains that one of his personnel examines and processes the voucher and supporting documents to find out if they are legal and proper and that if they appear to be legal and proper, he signs the same. Suffice to state, however, that as such Provincial Treasurer it was still his principal duty to see to it that the supporting documents were complete. A preliminary inventory of the number of documents attached to each disbursement voucher would have immediately warned him that these were incomplete and insufficient.
We are not unmindful of the fact that recent jurisprudence have allowed heads of offices to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates. However, it bears stress that the purpose of requiring responsible administrative officials to approve vouchers for payment is to enable them to know and scrutinize all the transactions or disbursements of funds under their supervision and responsibility. Otherwise, they would become mere rubber stamps. Sec. 184 of the Revised Manual of Instructions to Treasurers thus provides:
"It
is expected that when an administrative officer approves an account for
payment, he is satisfied that it is correct and just and that he
approves the payment as he would if he himself were to pay it from his
personal funds."
Respondent also assails the conduct by which the second inspection and reinspection were undertaken and the resultant findings. The Second Audit Team, in its Rejoinder under the second finding (pp. 154 and 155 of case records) correctly pointed out that none of the First Audit Team was technically qualified to evaluate the project per plans and specifications as not even one of them was an engineer. It was also noted that "the only document attached to the narrative report of the Region X team (First Audit Team) were the pictures taken. No technical report was included certifying that the thirty-one (31) projects were 100% completed in accordance with plans specifications."
To explain the non-inclusion of the representatives of the other government agencies the Reinspection Team in its SAO Report No. 93-06 narrates, thus:
"Representatives
of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the DPWH-ARMM, the
Provincial Government of Lanao del Sur and that of Former Governor
Pangarungan were also invited to join the inspection team. However,
representatives of the NBI were not able to show up and failed to join
the reinspection while the representatives of the DPWH-ARMM only came
three days before the period authorized for the reinspection was to
expire. Nonetheless, the composite team proceeded with the
re-inspection, with the representatives of the Provincial Government of
Lanao del Sur and that of Former Governor Pangarungan acting as guide,
in the person of Engineers Bocali B. Balt and Sebanah Tomawis . . ."
Respondent proffers the position that as Provincial Treasurer, he is not under obligation to directly attend to the inspection of the construction of the projects and, more particularly, in the ascertainment of whether or not the projects were prosecuted in accordance with the specifications in the contract.
In COA Decision No. 1201, the Commission on Audit denied the request of Mr. Henry Rañola, former Provincial Treasurer of Camarines Sur, for exclusion from liability on audit disallowance for two (2) disbursement vouchers signed by said Mr. Rañola. In its 4th Indorsement dated January 10, 1992 the commission held:
"After a careful evaluation hereof, this Commission believes and so holds that Mr. Rañola cannot be exculpated from liability under both vouchers. As signatory to Box No. 4 on Voucher Nos. 327 and 216, he assumed direct responsibility for the payment of said vouchers . . . (Emphasis supplied)
It is important to state that the 1991 ARMM Seed Money, subject of this investigation, was earned with the blood of both our Christian and Muslim brothers. This was no ordinary appropriation by government. Its release indicated the triumph of innumerable dialogues between government and the Muslim rebels which were repeatedly and painfully marked by bloody encounters between both sides. This signified a great opportunity for the improvement of the lives of our Muslim brothers in Mindanao.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, and as recommended by the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, respondent Hadji Macmod Dalidig is hereby found guilty of dishonesty resulting into grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Accordingly, he is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits under the law effective upon his receipt of a copy hereof.
SO ORDERED.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 5th day of December in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Six.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.
