CA affirms Ombudsman decision to dismiss dishonest Ilongga DENR collector
The Court of Appeals (CA) in a latest ruling sealed the fate of an Ilongga government worker earlier subject of a dismissal order by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Guilty as charged was the verdict of Associate Justices Francisco Acosta, Amy Lazaro – Javier and Rodil Zalameda following the review made on the Ombudsman Decision.
As such, Jesusa Pamatian, Bill Collector of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is deemed dismissed from government employ. Worse still, Pamatian’s fate carried “all accessory penalties” among which are forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from future employment in government.
Pamatian till the time of filing of graft charges was detailed at the DENR Community Environment Natural Resources Office (CENRO) Cadiz City. Her legal misery and eventual ‘downfall’ was caused by a DENR P30 certification fee. Pamatian after a lengthy graft case pursued by the Ombudsman was proven to have tampered the receipt. The P30 became P3,000 which was later restituted and full payment refunded yet for the anti-graft body, a crime was committed and Pamatian was to be held liable for dishonesty.
Review of the Ombudsman Decision was thereafter sought by the dismissed Pamatian before the CA. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85757, the CA found no merit on questions raised regarding the Ombudsman penalty.
“In the instant case, We are convinced that the decision of the Ombudsman finding petitioner (referring to Pamatian) administratively liable for dishonesty is based on substantial evidence. When there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman’s decision, that decision will not be overturned,” excerpts of the 12-paged CA Decision went.
Dishonesty, the CA pointed out, is the “concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one’s office or connected with the performance of his duty.”
“Given the above moral parameters, we find that petitioner was indeed guilty of dishonesty for issuing a single official receipt for separate transactions with different persons… Dishonesty and falsification of official document are classified as grave offense… and punishable by dismissal from service even for the first offense,” the CA Decision continued.
To note, Pamatian in her defense said it was an honest mistake and oversight from her end that the P30 became P3,000. She was overworked, she argued in her appeal thus the error.
For Ombudsman probers, Pamatian’s justification was “flimsy” while the CA deemed such deserving of “scant consideration.”
“Although no pecuniary damage was incurred by the government as the amount collected under the original receipt was eventually restituted, the fact remains that she committed gross dishonesty which could not be countenances, considering that she was an accountable officer and occupied a very delicate position. By engaging in such act, she jeopardized the public trust in the public service,” the CA Decision added.
The CA in handing the verdict on Pamatian closed its argument with a strong message against corruption.
“..it is not amiss to point out that public servants ought to exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less than the Constitution mandates that a public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees are accountable to the people, and must serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, as well as act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives,” the CA went.
Notice of CA Decision reached the Office of the Ombudsman in the Visayas Monday and deemed final unless Pamatian can get the Supreme Court to rule otherwise.