7/27/2019 Medina v Coa

1/2

Medina vs. COA | Tinga

FACTS

The Commission on Audit (COA) audited the cash and accountshandled by Lorna Medina (Medina) as Municipal Treasurer of GeneralMariano Alvarez, Cavite and the audit team, headed by EufrocinaMawak, discovered a total cash shortage of P4,080,631.36.

Medina was ordered to restitute the shortage but she failed to comply.

COA filed an administrative case with the Deputy Ombudsmancharging Medina with grave misconduct and dishonesty.

Medina filed a Counter-Affidavit and Position Paper raising affirmativedefenses.

Deputy Ombudsman Victor C. Fernandez (Fernandez) approved therecommendation of the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer todismiss petitioner from service; the decision noted Medina's supposedfailure to file a counter-affidavit and position paper despite due notice.

Later, Medina filed an urgent motion stating that she complied with thedirective to file a counter-affidavit and position paper and prayed thatthe decision be reversed based on her defenses.

Fernandez denied the motion; he acknowledged he made a mistake in

saying that Medina failed to file a counter-affidavit and position paperbut still affirmed the previous order because none of the defensesexculpate Medina from the cash shortages; furthermore, Medinasfailure to produce the cash shortage created the presumption that sheappropriated the funds for personal use.

Medina sought reconsideration on the grounds of newly discoveredevidence consisting of her petition for reconsideration of the auditreport which petition was still pending with the audit team and lettersto the provincial auditor of Cavite questioning the audit.

Fernandez denied the motion for reconsideration because the requestfor re-audit is not newly discovered evidence and he denied therequest for a formal investigation on the ground that petitioner wasafforded due process when she filed her counter-affidavit and position

paper. On appeal, the CA held that Medina was not entitled to a formal

investigation and it affirmed the Fernandez's factual finding that shewas guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty.

ISSUES/HELD

Was Medina deprived of her right to due process when her request fora formal investigation was denied? NO.

Is the finding that Medina was guilty for grave misconduct anddishonesty supported by substantial evidence? YES.

Is the penalty of dismissal proper? YES.

RATIONALE

1ST ISSUE

Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No.17, particularly governs the procedure in administrative proceedingsbefore the Office of the Ombudsman.o Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order

No. 17, Rule III, Section 5 specifically provides that the conduct of aformal investigation is discretionary upon the hearing officer.

o It further provides that, if the hearing officer sees no need toconduct a formal investigation, he may deem the case submitted

for resolution on the basis of the position papers, affidavits, andother pleadings filed.

On the other hand, Sec. 48(2) and Sec. 48(3) of the AdministrativeCode cited by Medina in support of her theory that she is entitled to aformal investigation apply only to administrative cases filed before theCivil Service Commission.

As this is an administrative complaint filed before the Office ofthe Ombudsman, it is the Rules of Procedure of the Office ofthe Ombudsman which shall govern; thus, in ruling that theprerogative to elect a formal investigation pertains to thehearing officer and not to petitioner, Fernandez was onlyapplying such procedure.

The Court has ruled on the primacy of special laws and of theirimplementing regulations over the Administrative Code of1987 in settling controversies specifically subject of thesespecial laws.o The aforesaid ruling is based on the principle of statutory

construction that where there are two statutes applicable toa particular case, that which is specially intended for thesaid case must prevail.

Even assuming the Administrative Code is applicable, still the recordsshow that Medina sought a reinvestigation only as an afterthought; thereinvestigation should have been requested at the first opportunityand definitely before the rendition of a decision.

The denial of Medina's request for a formal investigation is not

tantamount to a denial of her right to due process.o The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the

opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of theaction or ruling complained of.

o In this case, Medina was given the opportunity to be heardwhen she filed her counter-affidavit and position paper .

2ND ISSUE

Whether the finding of petitioner's guilt for grave misconduct anddishonesty is supported by substantial evidence, suffice it to say theseare factual issues calling for a review of the records of the case andclear and unmistakable is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trierof facts.

Anyhow, the Court adopts the findings of the Court of Appeals whichfound as a fact that an examination was conducted on Medinas cashand accounts and that a shortage was found which Medina was unable

Page 1 of 2

7/27/2019 Medina v Coa

2/2

to explain despite being given the opportunity to do so.3RD ISSUE

The penalty of dismissal is proper because jurisprudence isreplete with cases declaring that a grave offense cannot be mitigatedby the fact that the accused is a first time offender or by the length ofservice of the accused.

Page 2 of 2