City collector gets suspended

CEBU, Philippines - A local revenue collection officer detailed at the Cebu City Treasurer’s Office has been suspended by the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas for one month and a day without pay for simple neglect of duty.

Graf investigation and prosecution officer Katherine Genovesa held Julieta Marquita guilty for the administrative case against her on her alleged failure to liquidate cash advances on time.

“Respondent, however, never finished liquidating the remaining balance. It was only when COA sent the demand letters that she exerted efforts in locating the receipts and reimbursing the remaining balance,” the decision read, adding it is one of the duties of an accountable officer to settle unliquidated funds within the period provided by law.

Sabiniano Cabatuan of the Commission on Audit alleged that Marquita, a market supervisor or designated special disbursing officer of the Office of the City Treasurer in Cebu City, committed grave misconduct.

He alleged that in the course of the examination of the cash and accounts of Marquita on March 29, 2011, he found a shortage in the amount of P371,349.27.

Marquita said that in 2010 she was directed to draw the necessary advance charges from the Office of the Mayor for the street lighting of offices of Cebu City.

She said P5,101,000 was issued and encashed. She released the amount to more or less 20 Cebu City departments.

She made follow-ups of the receipt for liquidation but the liquidation was delayed due to the busy month of January 2011.

Marquita said she was able to liquidate the whole amount on April 12, 2014 and the COA conducted an audit on March 29, 2011.

She alleged that the COA did not consider the fact that there were other departments which had no yet liquidated the cash they received.

Marquita claimed that she did not misappropriate a single centavo and even paid the cash shortage “to remove the doubt in people’s minds.”

With the foregoing facts, Genovesa said Marquita cannot be held for misconduct but simple neglect of duty.

“In this case, although respondent was not able to produce the missing funds upon demand, she was able to satisfactorily prove that she did not use them for her own personal benefit because the cash advance was distributed to the different heads of the city department for the street lighting activity,” the decision reads. — Mylen P. Manto/ATO (FREEMAN)