Friday, May 09, 2008 SC upholds suspension By Karlon N. Rama Sun.Star Staff Reporter
THE Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the suspension of a Cebu City official for the “illegal practice” of granting cash advances to paymasters, making possible the so-called 1998 “paymaster scam.”
Eustaquio Cesa, who currently heads the Cebu City Assessor’s Office, was blamed and investigated for the incident that involved a paymaster running away with some P18.5 million in government money.
The paymaster, Rosalina Badana, remains missing.
Cesa has served the penalty. The Supreme Court ruling merely denies whatever claim for back wages he may have filed for the months he was suspended.
In issuing the ruling, the SC departed from a previously held position in the 1989 case of Arias vs. Sandiganbayan that superiors are not to blame for approving defective transactions entered into by “dishonest or negligent subordinates.”
Failure
“By failing to prevent the irregularity that Cesa had reason to suspect all along or to take immediate steps to rectify, Cesa had tolerated the same and allowed it to wreak havoc on the coffers of the City,” Justice Leonardo Quisum-bing said in the decision he wrote for the Supreme Court en banc.
“A public official’s foreknowledge of facts and circumstances that suggested an irregularity constitutes an added reason to exercise a greater degree of circumspection before signing and issuing public documents,” the ruling added.
The SC ruling pointed out that from Sept. 20, 1995 to March 5, 1998, Badana’s cash advances reached P216 million.
According to the ruling, she hid the shortage during cash counts by presenting payrolls and vouchers that, unknown to inspectors, had already been previously credited to her account.
The Office of the Ombudsman suspended Cesa for six months on Aug. 16, 2001 after a formal investigation on the Badana incident. He was then the City Treasurer.
The suspension included City Accountant Edna Jaca and Cash Division Chief Belinda Bacasmas.
Cesa, however, argued against the ruling all the way to the Court of Appeals, saying it was reached without due process.
He said the complaint against him was unsubstantiated and not verified.
Additionally, he argued that the anti-graft office had no power to directly penalize him.
He also cited the SC’s Arias case ruling.
“We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common problems-dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step from inception, and investigate the motives of every person involved in a transaction before affixing, his signature as the final approving authority,” the High Tribunal said in 1989.
Authority
Cesa pointed out that he didn’t grant the actual advances. That authority, he said, belonged to a higher officer.
He also stressed that his signature on the vouchers did not equal approval. His signature, he explained, was only there because it was required.
Moreover, he argued that Badana’s cash advances were “legal and necessary for city workers’ salaries.”
And even if they were not, he stressed that he could not be expected to review the work of individual workers under him, including Badana.
The Court of Appeals upheld the findings in a ruling dated Dec. 20, 2004, explaining that the Arias case does not apply.
It did declare, however, that the anti-graft office could not directly impose the penalty but recommend it to Cesa’s superiors at the Cebu City Government.
Cesa elevated the issue to the SC, raising five points.
The SC, in the Quisumbing ruling, fused them into two—whether Cesa’s right to due process was violated when he was suspended for six months as city treasurer and whether the appellate court erred in not applying the Arias ruling.
“After carefully considering the parties’ submissions, we find no cogent reason to reverse the appellate court’s ruling,” the SC said.
Cured
Whatever procedural lapse was committed, said the SC, it was cured when Cesa participated in the preliminary conference, submitted his counter-affidavit and supplemental counter-affidavit, actively participated in the proceedings by cross-examining witnesses, and filed a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman.
“Cesa was given every opportunity to explain his side and to present evidence in his defense during the administrative investigation,” the SC said.
On the departure from the Arias ruling, the SC said Cesa had “foreknowledge of facts and circumstances that suggested an irregularity” being committed.
His failure to prevent or rectify it meant tolerance, making it punishable, the SC said.
