Court of Appeals affirms suspension of Navy official, 9 others in fund mess

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman suspending without pay a ranking official of the Philippine Navy and nine other naval personnel in connection with the alleged misuse of funds worth over P4 million.

In an 11-page decision, the special 17th division of the appellate court has junked the petition of Rear Admiral Constancio Jardiniano Jr. and his fellow respondents in the graft complaint involving alleged misuse of the funds of Naval Education and Training Command (NETC).

The CA, through Associate Justice Sesinando Villon, has ruled that Ombudsman’s Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) was correct in finding probable cause in the complaint against the Navy officials and pursuing the investigation on Jardiniano who had earlier sought the nullification of the suspension order issued by Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez on May 3, 2007 affirming the OMB-MOLEO’s findings.

Aside from Jardiano, also charged were Lt. Cdr. Manuel L. Gimena, Lieutenants Junior Grade Daniel G. Labrador and Victoria L. Buhia, Ensign Annaleen C. Magdaraog, Rosemarie D. Siquinia, SKC Edmundo H. Baluca, Lt. Joel R. Tamayo, Ensign Rommel N. Guillermo and Marine Technical Sgt. Gilbert M. Labaguis.

The accused are facing administrative charges for abuse of authority, grave misconduct and dishonesty for their alleged mishandling of NETC funds.

“Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him,” the CA stressed.

The appellate court dismissed the claim of the petitioners that their right to due process was violated since they were never given a chance to be informed of the nature of the accusation against them nor afforded the opportunity to explain their side when the proceedings were still in the fact-finding stage in the Office of the Ombudsman.

It did not give merit to the claim of the accused that the power to suspend is not left to the absolute discretion of the Ombudsman but subject to the power of the court to review orders issued with grave abuse of discretion.

But the appeals court stressed that in administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving opportunity for the person charged to answer accusations constitute the minimum requirements of due process.

It noted that such requirement was met when the navy officers were allowed to submit their counter affidavits to refute the charges against them.

“The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling

complained of,” the CA stressed.

The suspension of Jardiniano and the other navy officers stemmed from a letter complaint from the officers and men of the NETC in Zambales denouncing the alleged irregular and anomalous handling of NETC funds in 2005 and 2006.

The complaint alleged that of the P4.3 million received by Gimena in 2005 in cash advances, NETC failed to liquidate P478,837. Again in 2006, Gimena allegedly received the same amount in cash advances but failed to liquidate P512,587.

The liquidations were likewise supported by spurious documents and the complainants submitted receipts that were allegedly used to justify the fraud.

Aside from the unliquidated cash advances, the complainants charged Jardiniano and his men of conspiring in the preparation of documents to make it appear that the medical supplies allegedly purchased from various sources were delivered to the Naval Station San Miguel hospital (NSSM) when none was delivered nor received by the intended recipient.