THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212641. July 5, 2017.]

ANGELICA A. FAJARDO , petitioner, vs. MARIO J. CORRAL , respondent.

DECISION

TIJAM , J : p

Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court, which seeks to annul and set aside the Decision 1 dated September 16, 2013 and
Resolution 2 dated May 9, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 121180.
ATICcS

Respondent Mario J. Corral (Corral), O cer-in-Charge (OIC) Manager of the

Treasury Department of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes O ce (PCSO), led a
Complaint-A davit docketed as OMB-C-A-09-0355-G against petitioner Angelica
Fajardo (Fajardo) for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of Service before the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman). 3
Fajardo was designated as OIC, Division Chief III, Prize Payment (Teller) Division
of the Treasury Department of the PCSO. Her duties included instituting procedures in
actual payment of prizes, conducting periodic check-up, actual counting of paid winning
tickets, and requisitioning of cash for distribution to paying tellers. She was also
authorized to draw cash advance of PhP3,000,000.00 (PhP2,000,000.00 for payment
of sweepstakes and lotto low-tier prizes, and PhP1,000,000.00 for the PCSO-POSC
Scratch IT Project. 4 For such accountability, Fajardo was bonded with the Bureau of
Treasury for PhP1,500,000.00. In line with her duties, she was issued a vault, which she
alone has access to as she held its key and knew the combination to open the same, to
keep the money and documents in her custody. 5
On November 13, 2008, a team from the PCSO Internal Audit Department (IAD)
conducted a spot audit on Fajardo's cash and cash items. The team discovered that
Fajardo had a shortage of PhP218,461.00. 6 After such audit, Fajardo did not report for
work, so said team of auditors sealed her vault on November 17, 2008 and her steel
cabinet on November 28, 2008. 7
Corral required Fajardo to report for work, to explain her shortage during the
audit, and to be physically present in the opening of her vault. Fajardo requested an
additional ve working days within which to report back to work, but she failed to do
the same despite the lapse of such extended period. 8
On January 8, 2009, another cash count was conducted, upon recommendation
of the Commission on Audit (COA). Said audit was held in the presence of Fajardo and
representatives from IAD and COA. During the said cash count, it was discovered that
cash worth PhP1,621,476.00 and checks worth PhP37,513.00 were missing. As such,
Fajardo had a total shortage of PhP1,877,450.00. It was also discovered that there
were undetermined number of paid winning sweepstakes tickets amounting to
PhP1,024,870.00 dating back from 2004, which were not processed for
liquidation/replenishment. 9

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 Five days thereafter or on January 13, 2009, a letter was issued to Fajardo, which
ordered her to immediately produce the missing funds and to explain such shortage.
However, Fajardo failed to account and to produce the missing funds, and to give a
reasonable excuse for such shortage. 1 0
In a Letter dated January 27, 2009, Fajardo admitted her mistake. She offered to
settle her accountability by waiving all her rights to bonuses and monetary bene ts for
2008 and paying PhP300,000.00. In her letter, Fajardo did not question the regularity of
the conduct of spot audits. 1 1
In her Counter-A davit, Fajardo denied that spot audits were conducted; and if
so, such were done contrary to established rules. Hence, the results could not be the
basis of any action against her. She maintained that the team of auditors excluded the
vale sheets and other cash items, and that she was not given the opportunity to rule,
balance, and close her books before the conduct of the cash count. Fajardo also
claimed that she was forced to sign Certi cations and Demands (Cash Examination
Count Sheet), containing her alleged shortage, on two different occasions. 1 2
THE OMBUDSMAN RULING
In a Decision 1 3 dated September 1, 2010, the Ombudsman found Fajardo guilty
of Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest
of Service. The fallo thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, nding substantial evidence of guilt for Serious
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
the Service, respondent ANGELICA A. FAJARDO is hereby meted the penalty of
DISMISSAL from the service, with all its accessory penalties.
Pursuant to Section 7, Administrative Order No. 17 of the O ce of the
Ombudsman and the Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 01, Series of
2006, the Chairman of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes O ce is hereby
directed to implement this Decision and to submit promptly a Compliance
Report within ve (5) days from receipt indicating the OMB case number: OMB-
C-A-09-0355-G, entitled "Mario J. Corral vs. Angelica A. Fajardo" to this O ce,
thru the Central Records Division, 2nd Floor, Ombudsman Building, Agham
Road, Government Center, North Triangle, Diliman, 1128, Quezon City. TIADCc

Compliance is respectfully enjoined consistent with Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No.

3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Section 15 (3) of R.A. No. 6770
(Ombudsman Act of 1989).
SO ORDERED. 1 4
Fajardo led a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in an Order 15 dated
March 16, 2011.
Aggrieved, Fajardo filed a Petition for Review before the CA.
THE CA RULING
In a Decision 1 6 dated September 16, 2013, the CA dismissed said petition and
affirmed the ruling of the Ombudsman. The dispositive portion reads:
ACCORDINGLY , the Petition for Review is DISMISSED . The Decision
dated 1 September 2010, and the Order dated 16 March 2011, of the O ce of
the Ombudsman, are AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED. 17

Fajardo led a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Resolution 1 8 dated May 9, 2014.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT FAJARDO IS GUILTY OF SERIOUS DISHONESTY, GRAVE
MISCONDUCT AND CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF
SERVICE.
OUR RULING
Fajardo avers that there was no substantial evidence to support the
pronouncement of her administrative liability.
We do not agree.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that questions of fact may not be raised by
certiorari under Rule 45 because We are not a trier of facts. As a rule, factual ndings of
the Ombudsman and the CA are conclusive and binding in the absence of grave abuse
of discretion. 1 9
We nd no reason to deviate from the factual ndings of both the Ombudsman
and the CA.
A nding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long
as it is supported by substantial evidence that the [petitioner] has committed acts
stated in the complaint or formal charge. 2 0 Substantial evidence is such relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine differently. 2 1
In the case at bar, it is established that Fajardo, entrusted with the funds of
PCSO, failed to account for cash and cash items in the amount of PhP1,877,450.00 and
paid winning sweepstakes tickets in the amount of PhP1,024,870.00. When she was
asked to expound on such shortage, she offered no satisfactory explanation for the
same.
The evidence presented were the two Certi cations and Demands (Cash and
Examination Count Sheet) which were signed by Fajardo, stating the shortage of funds
on her account. It is undisputed that Fajardo offered no explanation for such shortage
of funds when demand was made and admitted her accountability in a Letter dated
January 27, 2009.
Fajardo reasoned that her act of signing the Certi cations was no proof of
admission of the shortage, but a mere acknowledgement that a demand was made
upon her to produce cash. Such argument, which was copied entirely from the case of
Rueda, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan 2 2 without proper citation, is imsy. While the act of signing
such certi cations is not tantamount to admission of its contents, still, the fact remains
that there was shortage of funds on Fajardo's account and that she failed to explain the
reasons for the same despite reasonable opportunity.
To Our mind, the facts established and the evidence presented support the
finding of Fajardo's guilt.
Fajardo was charged with serious dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of service.
AIDSTE

Dishonesty has been de ned as the concealment or distortion of truth, which

shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray, or intent to
violate the truth. 2 3 Under CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, dishonesty may be classi ed as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 serious, less serious or simple. In this case, Fajardo was charged with serious
dishonesty, which necessarily entails the presence of any one of the following
circumstances:
(1) the dishonest act caused serious damage and grave prejudice to the
Government;
(2) the respondent gravely abused his authority in order to commit the
dishonest act;
(3) where the respondent is an accountable o cer, the dishonest
act directly involves property, accountable forms or money for which
he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to
commit material gain, graft and corruption;
(4) The dishonest act exhibits moral depravity on the part of respondent;
(5) The respondent employed fraud and/or falsi cation of o cial
documents in the commission of the dishonest act related to his/her
employment;
(6) The dishonest act was committed several times or in various occasions;
(7) The dishonest act involves a Civil Service examination irregularity or
fake Civil Service eligibility such as, but not limited to impersonation, cheating
and use of crib sheets; and
(8) Other analogous circumstances. 2 4 (Emphasis supplied)
Grave misconduct is de ned as the transgression of some established and
de nite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a
public o cer coupled with the elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or
to disregard established rules. 2 5 Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct,
consists in the o cial or employee's act of unlawfully or wrongfully using his position
to gain bene t for one's self. 2 6 Lastly, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
service deals with a demeanor of a public o cer which "tarnished the image and
integrity of his/her public office." 2 7
Clearly, Fajardo's acts constitute serious dishonesty for her dishonest act deals
with money on her account; and that her failure to account for the shortage showed an
intent to commit material gain, graft and corruption. Evidence of misappropriation of
the missing funds is not required because the existence of shortage of funds and the
failure to satisfactorily explain the same would suffice. 2 8
Grave misconduct was committed when Fajardo failed to keep and account for
cash and cash items in her custody. It must be noted that she was issued a vault by the
PCSO and was bonded by the Bureau of Treasury for her to effectively carry out her
duties and responsibilities. Yet, investigation conducted by the PCSO reveals that she
failed to perform such duties when such funds on her account were reported missing.
Her corrupt intention was evident on her failure to explain such missing funds despite
reasonable opportunity to do the same.
Lastly, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service was committed
because the acts of Fajardo tarnished the image of PCSO, as the principal government
agency for raising and providing funds for health programs, medical assistance and
services, and charities of national character, 2 9 considering that aside from the
shortage of funds, unpaid winning tickets dated 2004 were also found in Fajardo's
possession when she should have liquidated and replenished the same. The CA
correctly held that the public would lose their trust to PCSO because of the reported
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 misappropriation of funds, which are allotted as prizes. 3 0
WHEREFORE , the instant petition is DENIED . Accordingly, the Decision dated
September 16, 2013 and Resolution dated May 9, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 121180 are AFFIRMED in toto .
Petitioner Angelica A. Fajardo is DISMISSED FROM SERVICE , with all its
accessory penalties.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Bersamin, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate
Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias; rollo, pp. 39-59.
2. Id. at 91-92.

3. Id. at 40.
4. Id. at 40 and 102.

5. Id. at 40.
6. Cash Examination Count Sheet; id. at 127.
7. Id. at 40-41.

8. Id. at 44.
9. Id. at 42 and 44.

10. Id. at 41.

11. Id. at 44.

12. Id. at 41-42.

13. Reviewed by Acting Director Medwin S. Dizon, recommended by Acting Assistant
Ombudsman Mary Susan S. Guillermo and approved by Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N.
Gutierrez; id. at 128-141.
14. Id. at 139-140.

15. Id. at 164-172.

16. Supra at note 1.

17. Rollo, p. 59.

18. Supra at note 2.

19. Fajardo v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 173268, August 23, 2012.
20. Office of the Ombudsman v. Santos, G.R. No. 166116, March 31, 2006.
21. Advincula v. Dicen, G.R. No. 162403, May 16, 2005.

22. G.R. No. 129064, November 29, 2000.

23. Alfornon v. Delos Santos, et al., G.R. No. 203657, July 11, 2016.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 24. CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, Section 3.

25. Office of the Ombudsman v. Apolonio, G.R. No. 165132, March 7, 2012.
26. Seville v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 177657, November 20, 2012.
27. Largo v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 177244, November 20, 2007.

28. Belleza v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 133490, February 27, 2002.
29. Republic Act No. 1169, AN ACT PROVIDING FOR CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES, HORSE RACES,
AND LOTTERIES. Approved June 18, 1954.

30. Rollo, p. 55.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2017 cdasiaonline.com