Tag: COA Circular 97-002

Breach of Public Trust: Accountability for Misuse of Government Funds

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

April 19, 2022

Breach of Public Trust: Defining Misconduct and Dishonesty in Government Service

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal and forfeiture of benefits for a former government official found guilty of Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. This decision reinforces the high standards of conduct expected of public servants in handling public funds and adhering to established rules. It underscores that public office is a public trust, requiring accountability, integrity, and faithful compliance with the law.

When Public Funds Become Personal Coffers: The Case of Camilo Sabio’s Mismanagement

This case revolves around the administrative liabilities of Camilo L. Sabio, the former Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). He was found to have committed several violations during his tenure, including excess cellular phone charges, failure to remit funds from sequestered corporations to the Agrarian Reform Fund, and unliquidated cash advances. The central legal question is whether Sabio’s actions constituted Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, warranting administrative sanctions.

The charges against Sabio stemmed from three main issues. First, he incurred excess monthly charges on PCGG-issued cellular phones, totaling P25,594.76, violating the P10,000.00 cap set by his own office order. Second, he failed to deposit P10,350,000.00 from sequestered corporations to the Agrarian Reform Fund, as required by law. Third, he failed to liquidate P1,555,862.03 in cash advances used for travels and litigation of foreign cases, despite demands for liquidation.

In his defense, Sabio claimed that the PCGG’s operations were financed from recovered ill-gotten wealth and a Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF) that was never released to him. He argued that he utilized remittances from sequestered corporations in lieu of the CIF and that the cash advances were necessary for engaging foreign lawyers in the litigation of foreign cases. However, the Ombudsman found substantial evidence against him, leading to a Joint Decision finding him guilty of the administrative offenses.

The Ombudsman’s Joint Decision highlighted Sabio’s failure to refute the allegations regarding unpaid cellular phone charges, non-remittance of funds to the Bureau of Treasury (BOT), and unliquidated cash advances. The Ombudsman held him liable for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty, stating that his actions of appropriating or misappropriating ill-gotten wealth, excessive use of government resources, and failure to account for cash advances tarnished the integrity of his public office. Although Sabio was no longer connected with the PCGG, the Ombudsman imposed the penalty of forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and privileges, with prejudice to re-employment in the government.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Ombudsman’s ruling, stating that it was supported by substantial evidence. The CA noted Sabio’s failure to prove that the excess charges were used for official duties, his failure to remit funds to the BOT, and his inability to show that the cash advances were spent for their intended purposes. This led to the petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision lies the definition and application of key administrative offenses. Misconduct is defined as a transgression of an established rule, with grave misconduct requiring elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. Dishonesty involves the concealment or distortion of truth, indicating a lack of integrity or intent to deceive.

The Supreme Court emphasized that factual findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and given due respect, especially when affirmed by the CA. In this case, the Court found that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated Sabio’s culpability for the charges and satisfied the standard of substantial evidence.

Regarding the excess cellular phone charges, the Court noted Sabio’s flagrant disregard of the P10,000.00 cap, imposed by his own office order. The Court highlighted that the excess usage amounted to between 15.96% and 62.77% over the cap, rendering the expenses irregular, excessive, and extravagant. The Court found that the intent to procure a benefit for himself was evident in the fact that the charges remained unpaid, despite the provisions of the office order requiring the end-user to pay excess amounts. Therefore, the Court upheld Sabio’s liability for Grave Misconduct, but not for Serious Dishonesty.

Concerning the failure to remit funds to the Agrarian Reform Fund, the Court pointed to Section 63 of RA 6657, which mandates that all amounts derived from the sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the PCGG accrue to the CARP fund and be automatically appropriated for that purpose. The Court emphasized that ill-gotten wealth assumes a public character and must be returned to the public treasury. Sabio, however, converted the remittances from sequestered corporations into cash advances and failed to verify the exact amount of resources available to him.

The Court rejected Sabio’s reliance on the Special Provision of the General Appropriations Act for the Fiscal Year 2007, as the cash advances were disbursed in Fiscal Year 2006. The Court further clarified that receipts from the sale of ill-gotten wealth are not meant to be used for the operation of the PCGG, which is funded through the general appropriation allocated by Congress. Sabio’s failure to liquidate the cash advances, as required by COA Circular No. 97-002, further demonstrated his disregard for established rules.

The Court also dismissed Sabio’s claim that he left the encashment of checks and their use to other commissioners. The Court found that this fortified Sabio’s liability for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty, demonstrating his propensity to disregard the law and distort the truth. The Court further noted that the transfer of cash advances from one accountable officer to another is a violation of COA Circular No. 97-002.

Sabio invoked his acquittal in allied criminal cases for Violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 and Malversation of Public Funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Court held that his acquittal on the basis of insufficiency of evidence did not preclude administrative liability. The Court emphasized that administrative cases are independent from criminal proceedings, requiring only substantial evidence for a finding of guilt.

In this case, Sabio’s administrative liability rested on his flagrant disregard of the law and established rules, as well as his distortion of the truth in handling public funds. The Court found a pattern of open and repeated defiance, including the channeling of receipts from the sale of ill-gotten wealth to other purposes without authority and the failure to follow proper liquidation procedures. These actions warranted his liability for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty.

Regarding the unliquidated cash advances of P1,555,862.03, the Court dismissed Sabio’s claim that the amount formed part of his CIF. The Court emphasized that Sabio failed to present documentary evidence to show that the amount was spent for its intended purposes. As a result, the Court sustained Sabio’s liability for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.

The Court concluded that the totality of Sabio’s actions tarnished the image and integrity of his public office, amounting to Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. While this offense carries a penalty of suspension, the Court imposed the penalty corresponding to the most serious charges, which was forfeiture of retirement benefits and privileges, with prejudice to re-employment in the government.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that public office is a public trust, requiring public officers and employees to be accountable, responsible, and honest. The Court emphasized that public officers must perform their duties honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, Sabio failed in this respect, abusing his power and position to the detriment of the government and the public as a whole.

FAQs

What were the main charges against Camilo Sabio?	Sabio was charged with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service during his tenure as Chairman of the PCGG. These charges stemmed from excess cellular phone charges, failure to remit funds to the Agrarian Reform Fund, and unliquidated cash advances.
What is the definition of Grave Misconduct?	Grave misconduct is a transgression of an established rule, characterized by elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. It implies wrongful intention and must have a direct connection to the performance of official duties.
What constitutes Dishonesty in public service?	Dishonesty involves the concealment or distortion of truth, demonstrating a lack of integrity or an intent to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray. It is categorized into serious, less serious, and simple, with serious dishonesty involving circumstances such as causing grave prejudice to the government or abuse of authority.
Why was Sabio held liable for Grave Misconduct regarding cellular phone charges?	Sabio flagrantly disregarded the P10,000.00 cap on cellular phone usage, repeatedly incurring excessive charges. The intent to benefit himself was evident as these charges remained unpaid despite the office order requiring end-users to pay excess amounts.
What legal provision did Sabio violate by not remitting funds to the Agrarian Reform Fund?	Sabio violated Section 63 of RA 6657, as amended, which mandates that all amounts from the sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the PCGG accrue to the CARP fund. These funds are considered automatically appropriated for agrarian reform purposes.
How did Sabio’s acquittal in criminal cases affect the administrative case?	Sabio’s acquittal in criminal cases did not preclude his administrative liability. Administrative cases are independent from criminal proceedings, requiring only substantial evidence for a finding of guilt, unlike the proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal cases.
What was the significance of Sabio’s failure to liquidate cash advances?	Sabio’s failure to liquidate cash advances violated COA Circular No. 97-002, which requires the liquidation of all cash advances at the end of each year. This failure, along with his inconsistent categorizations of the cash advances, evidenced an intent to distort the truth and evade proper liquidation procedures.
What was the penalty imposed on Sabio?	Given that Sabio was no longer in service, the Supreme Court upheld the penalty of forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government.

This case serves as a potent reminder of the exacting standards of conduct expected of public servants in the Philippines. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the necessity for accountability, integrity, and faithful compliance with the law in handling public funds and resources. It reinforces the principle that public office is a public trust, and any breach of that trust will be met with appropriate administrative sanctions.

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: Camilo L. Sabio vs. Field Investigation Office (FIO), G.R. No. 229882, February 13, 2018

February 13, 2018

Accountable Public Officer: Failing to Render Accounts and Liability for Cash Advances

This Supreme Court decision clarifies the responsibilities of accountable public officers, particularly municipal mayors, regarding public funds. The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, finding Hermes E. Frias, Sr., guilty of violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code for failing to render accounts for disallowed cash advances. The decision underscores that public officials entrusted with public funds must properly account for them, even if they claim no personal benefit, and failure to do so carries both criminal and financial consequences. This case provides critical guidance on the accountability expected of local government officials in handling public resources.

The Mayor’s Undelivered Accounting: Unpacking Official Accountability

Hermes E. Frias, Sr., then the Municipal Mayor of Capas, Tarlac, faced charges for violating Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code. This stemmed from disallowed cash advances totaling P1,000,000, which the Commission on Audit (COA) required him to settle. The core issue was Frias’s failure to render accounts for these advances within two months after they should have been rendered. The prosecution argued that as an accountable officer, Frias was legally bound to provide an accounting, while Frias contended that he had passed the funds to the municipal treasurer and should not be held liable.

The Sandiganbayan found Frias guilty, emphasizing that his position as mayor made him responsible for the funds, regardless of who ultimately benefited from them. The court highlighted the elements necessary for a conviction under Article 218: the accused must be a public officer, accountable for public funds or property, required to render accounts, and must have failed to do so within the prescribed period. The defense challenged the sufficiency of the Information, claiming it didn’t adequately specify the acts constituting the violation and questioned whether Frias was indeed an accountable officer by legal standards.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, stressing that questioning the Information’s sufficiency came too late as Frias had already entered a plea and participated in the trial. The Court cited the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, defining an accountable public officer as someone responsible for public funds or property by virtue of their office. The Local Government Code further expands this definition, stating that local government officials are accountable either due to their functions or their participation in the use of public funds.

Section 340. Persons Accountable for Local Government Funds. — Any officer of the local government unit whose duty permits or requires the possession or custody of local government funds shall be accountable and responsible for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with the provisions of this title. Other local officials, though not accountable by the nature of their duties, may likewise be similarly held accountable and responsible for local government funds through their participation in the use or application thereof. (emphasis supplied)

In Frias’s case, the Court noted that as municipal mayor, he was the chief executive, and government regulations place primary responsibility for government funds on the agency head. Furthermore, the Court referenced Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, which held that public officers are accountable if they receive public funds and fail to account for them. Frias admitted to receiving the checks, making him undeniably accountable. Having established that Frias was an accountable officer, the Supreme Court looked into the obligation to liquidate cash advances. When cash advances were disallowed, regulations dictate that such officers must return those funds. The Local Government Code specifies that local accountable officers must render accounts as prescribed by the COA, a duty reinforced by COA Circular 97-002. These regulations set the timeline for liquidation and emphasize that all cash advances must be fully liquidated at year-end, with unexpended balances refunded.

Section 347. Rendition of Accounts. – Local treasurers, accountants and other local accountable officers shall render their accounts within such time, in such form, style, and content and under such regulations as the COA may prescribe.

Province, city, and municipal auditors shall certify the balances arising in the accounts settled by them to the Chairman of the COA and to the local treasurer, accountant, and other accountable officers. Copies of the certification shall be prepared and furnished other local officers who may be held jointly and severally liable for any loss or illegal, improper or unauthorized use or misappropriation of local funds or property. (emphasis supplied)

The Court found Frias failed to meet his obligations, offering flimsy excuses for his non-compliance. Due to this failure, the funds were deemed illegally or improperly used, and Section 342 of the Local Government Code stipulates that even acting under a superior’s direction does not absolve an accountable officer from liability for misapplication of funds. As a result, Frias was ordered to restitute the P1,000,000 to the Government and was free to recover from persons who were solidarily liable with him. In light of this ruling, the Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan according to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. They sentenced Frias to a minimum of six months of arresto mayor to a maximum of one year, eight months, and 20 days of the medium of prisión correccional and ordered him to pay a P6,000 fine. This decision underscores the high standard of accountability demanded from public officials, especially concerning public funds.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Hermes E. Frias, Sr., as a municipal mayor, violated Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code by failing to render accounts for disallowed cash advances. The court examined his responsibilities as an accountable public officer.
Who is considered an accountable public officer?	An accountable public officer is defined as a public officer who, by reason of their office, is accountable for public funds or property, as stipulated in the Government Auditing Code and expanded upon in the Local Government Code. This includes officials whose duties involve the possession or custody of local government funds.
What does Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code cover?	Article 218 penalizes any public officer who is required by law or regulation to render an account but fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should have been rendered. The penalties include imprisonment and fines.
What is the significance of COA Circular 97-002 in this case?	COA Circular 97-002 outlines the procedures and timelines for liquidating cash advances, reinforcing the requirement for accountable officers to liquidate their cash advances within specified periods. It further emphasizes that all cash advances shall be fully liquidated at the end of each year.
Why did the Court reject Frias’s argument that he gave the funds to the municipal treasurer?	The Court rejected this argument because, as the municipal mayor, Frias had primary responsibility for the funds and was accountable for them regardless of who ultimately received or benefited from them. His responsibility was to ensure proper accounting, not merely to pass the funds on.
What was the penalty imposed on Frias by the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court sentenced Frias to a minimum of six months of arresto mayor to a maximum of one year, eight months, and 20 days of prisión correccional and a fine of P6,000. He was also ordered to indemnify the Government in the amount of P1,000,000.
Can a public officer be relieved of liability if they acted under a superior’s direction?	Section 342 of the Local Government Code stipulates that a public officer is not relieved of liability for illegal or improper use of government funds even if acting under the direction of a superior officer, unless they register their objection in writing. The superior directing the action may also be held jointly and severally liable.
What does it mean to “render an account” in the context of public funds?	To “render an account” means to provide a detailed report and documentation of how public funds were used, ensuring transparency and accountability. This includes submitting vouchers, receipts, and other supporting documents to justify expenditures.
What happens if an accountable officer fails to restitute illegally used funds?	If an accountable officer fails to restitute illegally used funds, they may face criminal charges, financial penalties, and civil liabilities. This can include imprisonment, fines, and orders to return the funds to the government.

In conclusion, the Frias case serves as a reminder of the strict standards of accountability expected from public officials in the Philippines. This ruling reinforces the importance of proper handling and accounting of public funds, ensuring that those entrusted with these resources are held responsible for their stewardship. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in severe legal and financial consequences.

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

October 4, 2007