The Supreme Court affirmed the administrative liability of Radm Cecil R. Chen PCG (Ret.) for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Ombudsman’s decision that Chen, along with other Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) officials, violated procurement rules and compromised government service integrity. This ruling underscores the high standard of accountability required of public officials in managing public funds and reinforces the principle that reliance on subordinates does not excuse negligence or intentional disregard of regulations.

Navigating the Shoals: Can a Public Officer Claim Ignorance in the Face of Irregular Disbursements?

This case revolves around allegations of irregular disbursement of public funds within the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG). Audit Observation Memorandum No. PCG-2015-018 (AOM 15-018) flagged questionable practices in the liquidation of cash advances and reimbursement of expenses during Calendar Year 2014. The Field Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (FIB-MOLEO) subsequently filed complaints against 25 PCG officials, including Radm Cecil R. Chen PCG (Ret.), for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The core issue centered on whether Chen, as a Special Disbursing Officer (SDO), could be held administratively liable for irregularities in the disbursement of funds, despite his claims of reliance on subordinates and established PCG procedures.

The FIB-MOLEO investigation revealed that cash advances were irregularly issued and released, lacking proper documentation as required by COA Circular No. 97-002 (COA CN 97-002). This circular mandates that Special Cash Advances (SCAs) be granted only to duly designated disbursing officers or employees for specific purposes, especially when payment by check is impractical. The investigation also found violations of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1445, also known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, and Republic Act No. (RA) 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act, concerning the grant, utilization, and liquidation of cash advances. These laws require prior settlement of previous cash advances before additional ones are released, and generally mandate competitive bidding for all procurements.

Specifically, the charges against Chen involved two transactions amounting to P2,000,000.00 for office supplies and IT equipment. Chen defended himself by asserting that he was designated as SDO, relied on PCG personnel for disbursements and liquidation, and had no part in the PCG’s accounting practices. He further claimed that he did not participate in the identification, selection, and approval of purchased goods, and that he never converted public funds for personal gain. He invoked good faith and questioned the authenticity of his signature on one of the cash advances.

The Ombudsman Special Panel, however, found Chen and other PCG officials guilty of the administrative charges. The panel concluded that the officials voluntarily disregarded established procurement rules, employed fraud in purchasing supplies, and compromised the integrity and efficiency of government service. The Ombudsman approved the Consolidated Decision, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed it, holding Chen liable for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The CA highlighted Chen’s intent to violate the law, his breach of procurement rules, and his abuse of authority in approving disbursements without proper supporting documents.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, emphasized that petitions for review under Rule 45 are limited to questions of law. The Court is not a trier of facts and typically defers to the factual findings of the Ombudsman, especially when affirmed by the CA, unless there is grave abuse of discretion. Here, the Court found no reason to overturn the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA, as substantial evidence supported the charges against Chen.

The Court scrutinized several aspects of Chen’s conduct. Firstly, it noted that Chen failed to provide original and full copies of the office orders designating him as an SDO, which is a requirement under COA CN. 97-002. Secondly, while Chen presented a certification stating that he had liquidated all his cash advances from 2011-2014, this did not prove compliance with the rules requiring liquidation of previous cash advances before new ones are released. This requirement ensures proper accounting and prevents the accumulation of outstanding advances.

The Court also addressed the issue of emergency purchases. Chen argued that the negotiated procurement of office supplies and IT equipment was necessary due to urgent needs, especially in defending national territory and gathering intelligence in the West Philippine Sea. However, the Ombudsman found that the regularity of these purchases, involving common office expenses, negated the claim of urgency. Regular and foreseeable requirements should have been procured through competitive bidding. Furthermore, the Ombudsman noted that the SCAs were utilized for goods acquired through “Shopping,” a procurement method with specific limitations that were not met in this case, as specified in Section 52 of RA 9184.

Chen’s defense of relying on subordinates and PCG procedures was also rejected by the Court. As head of office, Chen was responsible for ensuring compliance with the rules and regulations. The Court found his claim of being forced to comply with a flawed system unpersuasive, emphasizing the high degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and skill required of public officers. The Court clarified that the Arias v. Sandiganbayan doctrine, which allows heads of office to rely on subordinates to a reasonable extent, is inapplicable when irregularities are apparent on the face of the documents.

The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, and public officers must be accountable to the people, serving with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Chen’s failure to exercise due diligence in overseeing the disbursement of public funds, despite irregularities in the supporting documents, constituted Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Court defined these offenses and noted that the appropriate penalty for Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct is dismissal. However, since Chen had already retired, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to his one-year salary, deductible from his receivables, and the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Radm Cecil R. Chen, as a Special Disbursing Officer, was administratively liable for irregularities in the disbursement of public funds, despite his claims of reliance on subordinates and established PCG procedures.
What were the charges against Radm Chen?	Radm Chen was charged with Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service due to irregularities in the disbursement of public funds within the Philippine Coast Guard.
What did the Commission on Audit (COA) find?	The COA found that cash advances were granted without proper documentation, such as office orders designating the recipients as Special Disbursing Officers, and that some business establishments listed on invoices could not be located.
What is a Special Cash Advance (SCA)?	A Special Cash Advance is a fund granted to a duly designated disbursing officer for specific, legally authorized purposes, particularly when payment by check is impractical.
What does COA Circular No. 97-002 require?	COA Circular No. 97-002 requires that SCAs be granted only to duly designated disbursing officers and that previous cash advances must be settled before additional ones are released.
What is Presidential Decree No. 1445?	Presidential Decree No. 1445, also known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, sets the rules and regulations for the proper management and disbursement of public funds.
What is Republic Act No. 9184?	Republic Act No. 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act, governs the procurement of goods, services, and infrastructure projects by government entities, generally requiring competitive bidding.
What is “Shopping” as a mode of procurement?	“Shopping” is a method of procurement where a procuring entity requests price quotations for readily available goods from suppliers. It is allowed only under specific instances and thresholds, such as unforeseen contingencies or procurement of ordinary office supplies.
What was the Court’s ruling on Radm Chen’s reliance on subordinates?	The Court rejected Radm Chen’s defense of relying on subordinates, stating that as head of office, he was responsible for ensuring compliance with rules and regulations, and he could not blindly adhere to their findings, especially when irregularities were apparent.
What was the penalty imposed on Radm Chen?	Since Radm Chen had already retired, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to his one-year salary, deductible from his receivables, and the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

This case serves as a potent reminder of the stringent standards of accountability imposed on public officials in the management of public funds. It underscores that ignorance or reliance on subordinates is not a valid excuse for failing to comply with procurement laws and auditing rules. Public servants must exercise due diligence and ensure that all disbursements are transparent, properly documented, and in accordance with the law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RADM Cecil R. Chen PCG (Ret.) vs. Field Investigation Bureau, G.R. No. 247916, April 19, 2022