April 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > April 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177269 : April 28, 2010] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. BERNARDO FORBES, RUPERTO PILAPIL AND EDUARDO ESTOLANO:
[G.R. No. 177269 : April 28, 2010]
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. BERNARDO FORBES, RUPERTO PILAPIL AND EDUARDO ESTOLANO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 28 April 2010:
G.R. No. 177269[*] (Office of the Ombudsman v. Bernardo Forbes, Ruperto Pilapil and Eduardo Estolano).-
This refers to the defense of good faith in an administrative charge of dishonesty in public service.
The Facts and the Case
On November 12, 1998 Atanacio Labrador and Honesto Coralde, Intelligence Agent I and Intelligence Officer II, respectively, of the Civil Security Division (CSD) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) visited the Albay Engineering District to conduct a "discreet investigation" on some of its officials. When they left for Albay, however, only the itinerary voucher for their plane tickets had been processed. They had not yet received their per diems and allowances. Consequently, Labrador borrowed P1,000.00 from Felicisima Alcantara, an Intelligence Officer II of the CSD, for his pocket money.
Labrador and Coralde returned to Manila on November 19, 1998 and reported back to their office on the following day but Nelson Umali, the Officer-in-Charge of the CSD, instructed them not to sign the logbook of attendance. On November 26, 1998 Alcantara, from whom Labrador borrowed money, gave him P1,800.00 and told him that the amount plus the P1,000.00 he borrowed earlier represented his per diem and allowances. In all, therefore, Labrador received P2,800.00 from Alcantara.
After securing a copy of the pertinent disbursement voucher from their Cash Division, Labrador discovered that: (1) his disbursement voucher was for P4,800.00, not P2,800.00; (2) it covered his travel to the Albay Engineering District for 15 days from November 12 to 26, 1998; and (3) Umali, the CSD head indorsed the corresponding check on his behalf.
On November 27, 1998 Labrador also found out that respondents Bernardo Forbes, Ruperto Pilapil, and Eduardo Estolano intervened in the processing, not only of the particular disbursement voucher and its corresponding check, but also of some others in the past. Labrador never authorized any of those three to sign the disbursement vouchers or receive the checks for him. Labrador would receive P700.00 to P800.00 as pocket money for each of his past travels although the DPWH Accountmg Division files revealed that he should have received more. It turned out that Umali,his superior, had been forging Labrador's signature on previous checks representing the latter's pocket money for various official travels.
Because of the above, Labrador charged Umali with malversation and falsification of public documents before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). Upon investigation, the OMB found that respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano also took part in the follow-up and encashment of Labrador's checks. It thus directed them to submit their respective counter-affidavits.
In their counter-affidavits, Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano admitted taking part in the processing of the subject vouchers and checks, but averred that they did so only as a favor to Labrador, who allegedly gave them authority to do so. On March 19, 2002 the OMB rendered a decision finding Umali and respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, meting upon them the penalty of dismissal.
In their separate petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano claimed that they intervened in facilitating the vouchers and checks, not because Labrador himself authorized them as they earlier said in their counter-affidavits, but in obedience to the orders of Umali, their office head. Umali, according to respondents, made them sign those counter-affidavits which did not give a true account of what happened.
On October 11, 2006 the CA affirmed the OMB's decision with respect to Umali, but absolved respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano of the charges against them.
The Issue Presented
Whether or not the CA erred in absolving respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano of guilt in assisting Umali on the occasions when he cheated Labrador of his travel allowances.
The Rulings of the Court
Dishonesty has been defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive, or betray.[1]
It appears from the findings of the CA that respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano complied with Umali's orders, never suspecting that something irregular or illegal attended the transactions. Forbes followed-up the processing of Labrador's voucher and received the check covering the P4,800.00 from the Cash Division. With respect to Labrador's previous four checks, it was Pilapil who did the follow-ups and got the checks. Estolano, for his part, followed-up the processing of Labrador's voucher dated December 9, 1996 and got the corresponding check for P3,900.00, representing the travel allowances to Borongan, Eastern Samar.
The three respondents intervened in the processing of the subject vouchers and checks with no intent to defraud Labrador since they believed in good faith that Labrador and Umali had some kind of arrangement concerning those transactions. Little did they know that Umali had been cheating Labrador of his money. Parenthetically, Labrador himself was convinced that only Umali should be held responsible. For this reason, he did not include respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano in his complaint. The Court is satisfied that, in complying with Umali's instructions, respondents did not profit from it and had no intention to lie or cheat.
It may be argued that respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano failed to exercise proper diligence in doing their tasks, thus, causing prejudice, not only to Labrador, but more so to the interest of the government service. But dismissal from work is too harsh a penalty for such omission considering the level of their infraction and the fact that they were first time offenders.
As to the respondents' alleged change of theory, the same is more apparent than real. True, a party cannot change the theory of the case on appeal in the hope of getting a favorable result.[2] It would offend the basic rules of justice and fair play.[3] But, what happened here is that respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano were assisted by the same lawyer who represented Umali when they signed their controversial counter-affidavits. They were misled into signing the same on the assurance that everything would go well and they had little choice since they could not afford to pay their own lawyer. Strictly speaking, therefore, the theory of the case did not belong to respondents. Besides, even assuming that they indeed changed their theory of the case, the rule against such action is merely a rule of procedure which may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 75316 and 75154 dated October 11, 2006 that absolved respondents Bernardo Forbes, Ruperto Pilapil, and Eduardo Estolano of the charges against them.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta (designated additional member per Raffle dated 19 October 2009), Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 28th day of April, 2010.
G.R. No. 177269[*] (Office of the Ombudsman v. Bernardo Forbes, Ruperto Pilapil and Eduardo Estolano).-
This refers to the defense of good faith in an administrative charge of dishonesty in public service.
The Facts and the Case
On November 12, 1998 Atanacio Labrador and Honesto Coralde, Intelligence Agent I and Intelligence Officer II, respectively, of the Civil Security Division (CSD) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) visited the Albay Engineering District to conduct a "discreet investigation" on some of its officials. When they left for Albay, however, only the itinerary voucher for their plane tickets had been processed. They had not yet received their per diems and allowances. Consequently, Labrador borrowed P1,000.00 from Felicisima Alcantara, an Intelligence Officer II of the CSD, for his pocket money.
Labrador and Coralde returned to Manila on November 19, 1998 and reported back to their office on the following day but Nelson Umali, the Officer-in-Charge of the CSD, instructed them not to sign the logbook of attendance. On November 26, 1998 Alcantara, from whom Labrador borrowed money, gave him P1,800.00 and told him that the amount plus the P1,000.00 he borrowed earlier represented his per diem and allowances. In all, therefore, Labrador received P2,800.00 from Alcantara.
After securing a copy of the pertinent disbursement voucher from their Cash Division, Labrador discovered that: (1) his disbursement voucher was for P4,800.00, not P2,800.00; (2) it covered his travel to the Albay Engineering District for 15 days from November 12 to 26, 1998; and (3) Umali, the CSD head indorsed the corresponding check on his behalf.
On November 27, 1998 Labrador also found out that respondents Bernardo Forbes, Ruperto Pilapil, and Eduardo Estolano intervened in the processing, not only of the particular disbursement voucher and its corresponding check, but also of some others in the past. Labrador never authorized any of those three to sign the disbursement vouchers or receive the checks for him. Labrador would receive P700.00 to P800.00 as pocket money for each of his past travels although the DPWH Accountmg Division files revealed that he should have received more. It turned out that Umali,his superior, had been forging Labrador's signature on previous checks representing the latter's pocket money for various official travels.
Because of the above, Labrador charged Umali with malversation and falsification of public documents before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). Upon investigation, the OMB found that respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano also took part in the follow-up and encashment of Labrador's checks. It thus directed them to submit their respective counter-affidavits.
In their counter-affidavits, Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano admitted taking part in the processing of the subject vouchers and checks, but averred that they did so only as a favor to Labrador, who allegedly gave them authority to do so. On March 19, 2002 the OMB rendered a decision finding Umali and respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, meting upon them the penalty of dismissal.
In their separate petition for review before the Court of Appeals (CA), respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano claimed that they intervened in facilitating the vouchers and checks, not because Labrador himself authorized them as they earlier said in their counter-affidavits, but in obedience to the orders of Umali, their office head. Umali, according to respondents, made them sign those counter-affidavits which did not give a true account of what happened.
On October 11, 2006 the CA affirmed the OMB's decision with respect to Umali, but absolved respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano of the charges against them.
The Issue Presented
Whether or not the CA erred in absolving respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano of guilt in assisting Umali on the occasions when he cheated Labrador of his travel allowances.
The Rulings of the Court
Dishonesty has been defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive, or betray.[1]
It appears from the findings of the CA that respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano complied with Umali's orders, never suspecting that something irregular or illegal attended the transactions. Forbes followed-up the processing of Labrador's voucher and received the check covering the P4,800.00 from the Cash Division. With respect to Labrador's previous four checks, it was Pilapil who did the follow-ups and got the checks. Estolano, for his part, followed-up the processing of Labrador's voucher dated December 9, 1996 and got the corresponding check for P3,900.00, representing the travel allowances to Borongan, Eastern Samar.
The three respondents intervened in the processing of the subject vouchers and checks with no intent to defraud Labrador since they believed in good faith that Labrador and Umali had some kind of arrangement concerning those transactions. Little did they know that Umali had been cheating Labrador of his money. Parenthetically, Labrador himself was convinced that only Umali should be held responsible. For this reason, he did not include respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano in his complaint. The Court is satisfied that, in complying with Umali's instructions, respondents did not profit from it and had no intention to lie or cheat.
It may be argued that respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano failed to exercise proper diligence in doing their tasks, thus, causing prejudice, not only to Labrador, but more so to the interest of the government service. But dismissal from work is too harsh a penalty for such omission considering the level of their infraction and the fact that they were first time offenders.
As to the respondents' alleged change of theory, the same is more apparent than real. True, a party cannot change the theory of the case on appeal in the hope of getting a favorable result.[2] It would offend the basic rules of justice and fair play.[3] But, what happened here is that respondents Forbes, Pilapil, and Estolano were assisted by the same lawyer who represented Umali when they signed their controversial counter-affidavits. They were misled into signing the same on the assurance that everything would go well and they had little choice since they could not afford to pay their own lawyer. Strictly speaking, therefore, the theory of the case did not belong to respondents. Besides, even assuming that they indeed changed their theory of the case, the rule against such action is merely a rule of procedure which may be relaxed in the interest of substantial justice.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 75316 and 75154 dated October 11, 2006 that absolved respondents Bernardo Forbes, Ruperto Pilapil, and Eduardo Estolano of the charges against them.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta (designated additional member per Raffle dated 19 October 2009), Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 28th day of April, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[*] J. Del Castillo, no part. J. Peralta, additional member, per raffle dated October 19, 2009.
[1] Office of the Court Administrator v. Ibay, 441 Phil. 474, 478 2002).
[2] Tokuda v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 139628, May 5, 2006, 4S9 SCRA 549. 554-555; Big AA Manufacturer v. Antonio, G.R. No. 160854, March 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 33, 43
[3] Silva v. Mationg, G.R. No. 160174, August 28, 2006, 499 SCRA 724, 737.
