Digest: Atty. Nacion vs. COA

1.  ATTY. NACION v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT et. al.,
G.R. No. 204757, March 17, 2015
REYES, J.:
 

Facts:

 

Nacion was assigned by the COA to the Metropolitan Waterworks Sewerage System (MWSS) as State Auditor V. when Nacion was already holding the position of Director IV of COA, National Government Sector, a formal charge⁵ against her was issued by COA Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan (Chairperson Tan) for acts found to be committed when she was still with the MWSS.

 

which was docketed as Administrative Case No. 2011-002, were investigation reports based on MWSS journal vouchers, disbursement vouchers and claims control index. COA’s investigation of its personnel assigned to MWSS was prompted by its receipt of a letter from then MWSS Administrator Diosdado Jose M. Allado, who complained of unrecorded checks and irregularly issued disbursement vouchers that were traced to refer to bonuses and other benefits of the COA MWSS personnel.

 

Nacion admitted that she availed of the MWSS Housing Project and thus, was awarded a 300-square-meter lot at the MWSS Employees Corporate Office Housing Project 

 

Nacion invoked an honest belief that she could avail of the benefit given the absence of any prohibition thereon upon COA personnel.

 

Nacion admitted that she also availed of the MWSS Multi-Purpose Loan Program – Car Loan, upon an honest belief that she was not prohibited from doing so. She emphasized that her car purchase was not subsidized. She was obligated to pay in full the principal amount of the loan, plus interest and incidental expenses like registration fees and insurance premiums.

 

Nacion, however, denied having received bonuses and benefits from MWSS.

 

COA rendered its Decision finding Nacion guilty of grave misconduct and violation of reasonable rules and regulations.

 

The core issue for the Court’s resolution is: whether or not the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in finding Nacion guilty of grave misconduct and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.

To support her petition against the COA, Nacion invokes due process as she argues that the records during her tenure with the MWSS should not have been included by the audit team in its investigations, as no office order covering it was issued by the COA Chairman. Furthermore, the documentary evidence considered by the Fraud Audit and Investigation Office (FAIO) did not constitute substantial evidence to prove the commission of the offenses with which she was charged.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the documentary evidence considered by the Fraud Audit and Investigation Office (FAIO) did not constitute substantial evidence to prove the commission of the offenses with which she was charged.

Ruling:

Substantial Evidence in Administrative Case

The Court also finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA in holding Nacion administratively liable for the offenses with which she was charged.

In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence that is necessary to declare a person administratively liable is mere substantial evidence. This is defined under Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Sec. 5. Substantial evidence. – In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Emphasis ours)

It is settled that the factual findings of administrative bodies are controlling when supported by such substantial evidence.In resolving the present petition, the Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from this general rule. Three separate acts were found to have been committed by Nacion, all sufficient to support the COA’s finding of grave misconduct and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.

Nacion’s receipt of the prohibited benefits and allowances were duly proved by documentary evidence. The presentation of documents bearing Nacion’s signature to prove her receipt of the money was not indispensable. Recipients of unauthorized sums would, after all, ordinarily evade traces of their receipt of such amounts. Resort to other documents from which such fact could be deduced was then appropriate. In this case, the claims control indices considered by the COA were supported by journal vouchers and entries, which constitute public records. No evidence that could sufficiently challenge the correctness of the contents thereof and the COA’s conclusions therefrom was presented by Nacion.