699 Phil. 9
BRION, J.:
In [MPDP] projects, the DA-6 and the beneficiary [MCPI] are required to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the following terms:
The DA Regional Field Office shall:
1) Administer, manage and disburse the FUND in accordance with government accounting and auditing rules and regulations;
2) Maintain separate books of account and record all transactions related to the FUND’S utilization under trust fund, 200-07, and maintain a separate subsidiary ledger for each grantee;
3) Reimburse through full payment the actual expenses incurred by the recipient for supplies and materials relative to the construction of the pavement in the amount not exceeding P60,000.00, and payment shall be released only upon recipient’s submission of official receipt/s for actual expenses incurred for supplies and materials;
4) Prepare a monthly report of disbursement attested to by its resident auditor and submit the same to the DA Central Office together with duplicate copies of the disbursement vouchers and complete supporting documents, as liquidation of funds utilized for the implementation of the project covered by the budget;
5) Furnish the Regional Auditor a copy of the Agreement and other pertinent documents;
6) Conduct periodic inspections to ascertain progress of work, proper fund utilization and the recipient’s compliance with the specifications of the MPDP.
The recipient shall:
1) Acknowledge acceptance of payment upon receipt of the fund in the form prescribed by the DA regional office;
2) Provide labor for the clearing and preparation of the area and the construction of the MPDP;
3) Conduct a canvass of at least three (3) reputable suppliers in the area who can offer the most beneficial terms for the supply of the materials required in the construction of the MPDP;
4) Advance the initial expenses for the supplies and materials relative to the project and finish the construction of the MPDP in strict conformity with the project’s purpose and specifications and, save for justifiable causes, within thirty (30) days from the signing of the Agreement;
5) Make available project records and related documents to the DA Regional Office’s representative for inspection;
6) Ensure that the MPDP is at all times properly identified and labeled as a DA Multi-Purpose Drying Pavement;
7) Whenever feasible and without, in any way, detracting from the grant’s major purpose and the recipient’s priority of usage, allow the pavement’s use for the immediate community’s social and other activities. To this end, the recipient shall promulgate rules relative to the pavement’s usage, copy furnished the DA Regional Office and the community’s Barangay Captain;
8) Assume/shoulder the cost of the required supplies and materials in excess of P60,000.00;
9) Desist/refrain from the introduction of any modification or the construction of any building or structure on the MPDP which will defeat the grant’s purpose;
10) Refund/return to the DA Regional Office the total amount received from the DA in cases of a) commission of fraud and/or misrepresentation thereof; b) Non-compliance with the project’s specifications; and c) any other violation of the Agreement.[8] (emphases ours)
1) Requisition and issue voucher;
2) Canvass papers;
3) Abstract of canvass;
4) Purchase order;
5) CAF (COA);
6) COA Circular No. 76-34;
7) COA Memo. No. 83-333;
8) Charge invoice/bill of collection;
9) Inspection report by a DA and COA representative;
10) Inspection report by the LGU committee;
11) Memorandum of Agreement;
12) Two (2) copies of pictures (of the MPDP);
13) Deed of donation/usufruct;
14) Certificate of registration; and
15) Resolution.[10] (emphasis ours)
1) Project proposal;
2) Resolution;
3) Memorandum of agreement;
4) Approved plans and specifications;
5) Notices to commence;
6) Delivery/official receipts;
7) Request for inspection of supplies and materials from the beneficary farmers[’] organizations;
8) Inspection report of all specified materials procured and delivered;
9) Certificate of final completion to be signed by the chairman of the farmers’ organization[s] or his duly authorized representatives;
10) Request from the beneficiary farmers’ organization[s] for inspection of completed projects addressed to the DA-6 Inspection Committee and the COA;
11) Report of inspection by the DA-6 with a COA representative (a written manifestation is to be made by the COA in the absence of its representative);
12) Two (2) copies of MPDP pictures with the farmers’ organization Chairman and marketing (sic) label – “MPDP-DA-FO Project”;
13) Certificate of acceptance from the farmers’ organization[s], noted by the Municipal Agriculture Officer.[11] (emphasis ours)
When the Audit Team, however, examined the vouchers covering the claims for reimbursements of supplies and materials used for the MPDP’s, only the following documents were attached thereto:
Respondent Legaspi, himself, admits that the requirements he enumerated were not complied with.
In some vouchers, the signatures of the [MCPI] Chairmen and officers in the Memoranda of Agreement greatly differ from the signatures attributed to them in the documents attached to the vouchers, such as the:1) Canvass papers;
2) Abstracts of canvass;
3) Reports of inspection;
4) Certificates of acceptance;
5) Acknowledgment receipts; and
6) Requisition and issue voucher.
According to the Chairmen and officers of some beneficiary cooperatives, they were given sets of documents – MOA, canvass papers, abstracts of canvass, acknowledgment receipts, inspection reports as to the delivery of materials, and certificates of acceptance of items delivered, by DA personnel, Provincial and/or municipal agriculturists – for them to sign. All those documents, except the MOA, were in blank.
A canvass was required to be made by the recipients of at least three (3) reputable suppliers in the area who can offer the most beneficial terms in the purchase of materials necessary for the construction of an MPDP. It is apparent, however, that no canvass were made by the recipients, and in the canvass papers, only three (3) suppliers were involved, namely: AVV Marketing, Marietta Marketing and Datsan Multi-Traders, all with business addresses in Iloilo City, and only one supplier – the AVV Marketing of respondent Villaruz – was awarded the right to supply the materials in the nineteen (19) MPDP projects.
The purchase orders were signed, and the supplies were paid for, not by the recipients but by (officials of) the DA-6 despite the provisions of the Memoranda of Agreement that it was the recipients who shall purchase the necessary materials, subject to reimbursement from the DA-6 upon completion of all the requirements therefor.
According to respondents Gonzales and Josefa Majaducon, the “paper flow” for the processing of claims for payment at the DA-6 is as follows:
a) The claim for payment starts at the office of the division chief concerned where the project to be paid belongs. There, Box A of the Voucher is signed by the division chief concerned;
b) The voucher and the supporting documents are brought to the Budget Section for the allocation of funds and the preparation and signature of the Request for Obligation of Allotment (ROA);
c) The Budget Section sends the documents to the Office of the Accountant for processing and preparation of the voucher for payment;
d) The Office of the Accountant sends the voucher and supporting documents to the Regional Director for the approval of the voucher;
e) After approval of the voucher, the claim is sent to the Cashier’s Office for the preparation of the check;
f) The check and the rest of the documents are then sent to the Office of the Regional Director for counter-signature;
g) Thereafter, the check and the documents are sent to the Releasing Clerk in the Cashier’s Office for release to the payee or his duly authorized representative.
Had there been no predisposition on the part of the respondents to release the funds, none of them could have failed to notice the foregoing irregularities. Moreover, there is no evidence that efforts have been exerted to recover the funds from the beneficiaries or make them answerable therefor as stipulated in the memoranda of agreement covering the subject projects. Worse, although the vouchers and checks covering the subject MPDP projects were in the name of the beneficiary [MCPI]’s, the Warrant Registry Book shows that the checks were released to Dan Villaruz, Jr. or his representative, without written authority (such as special power of attorney) from the said beneficiaries. None of the [MCPI] officers admits (sic) having received any check from the DA-6, and even those few among them who received something for the construction of MPDP’s, what they received were materials, not money or check. One could not help but conclude that there existed conspiracy among the respondents and officers/members of some of the beneficiaries/cooperatives.
There is substantial evidence, therefore, that the respondents, conspiring and confederating with one another, falsified documents to facilitate the disbursement of, and misappropriated, the funds intended for the subject MPDP projects.[13] (emphases and italics ours)
As we have pointed out in the questioned Decision, Sixteen (16) of the subject MPDP projects were not implemented[,] but the funds intended therefor were disbursed and released. In other words, these projects turned out to be “ghosts”. Not only that.
None of the respondents-movants disputed the findings of this Office and the COA-6 that so many of the documents, including photographs of the MPDP’s with the MCPI’s chairman and a label – “MPDP-DA-FO Project”, which were required to be submitted by the beneficiary [MCPI]’s before the release of the funds, were not submitted.
In some vouchers, the signatures of the [MCPI] chairpersons and officers affixed in the memoranda of agreement differ from those attributed to them in the documents attached to the vouchers, such as the canvass papers, abstracts of canvass, reports of inspection, certificates of acceptance, acknowledgment receipts and requisition and issue vouchers.
A canvass was required to be done by the beneficiaries themselves from at least three (3) reputable suppliers in the areas concerned. But it is apparent that no canvass was made by the beneficiaries. Canvass papers were produced with the names of only Three (3) suppliers, all based in Iloilo City, appearing thereon.
The purchase orders were signed, and the supplies were paid for, not by the recipients as required[,] but by DA-6 officials.
Despite the provisions of the memoranda of agreement that the DA-6 must maintain separate books of account and record all transactions related to the utilization of the MPDP funds under trust fund, those funds were actually released under supplies and materials.
We wonder how the non-implementation or non-existence of not one but sixteen MPDP projects, and the anomalies in the documents that supported the vouchers and the process by which the funds were disbursed and released, could have escaped the notice of the officials responsible therefor.
Nevertheless, we did not just conclude from the foregoing facts that the respondents, including the movants, are liable therefor. Our findings were based on the actual individual participation of the respondents in the processes by which the funds intended for the non-existent MPDP’s were disbursed, released and eventually, misappropriated.
The findings of this Office in OMB-V-C-02-0389-G that only ABUNDIO M. LEGASPI, JR. is liable for the deficiencies in Thirty (30) other MPDP’s is irrelevant in this case. Suffice it to say that in those MPDP’s, only deficiencies were found.
Instead of helping his defense, the allegations of respondent Amit that the Issue Slips were totally unnecessary seem to strengthen the evidence against him. He knew that [the] Issue Slips were not necessary, why did he not just tell the accounting section of the DA-6 that he was not signing those documents because they were not necessary? That what was done – releasing the MPDP funds under supplies and materials – was irregular? But considering that purchases made under supplies and materials expense must be released through the issuance of Issue Slips, the issuance by respondent Amit of the Issue Slips of materials were intended to facilitate, as it facilitated, the disbursement and release of the misappropriated funds.[14] (emphases ours)
- the issue slips, which were ordinarily used in the requisition and procurement of supplies and materials by the DA RFU 6, were unnecessary in the implementation of the MPDP projects since the DA merely reimburses the actual expenses incurred by the farmers’ organizations in the construction of the MPDP;
- due to the error in releasing funds under supplies and materials, the issue slips were required by the Accounting Section for the purpose of dropping the entry of inventory for supplies and materials in the Monthly Report of Supplies and Materials which he followed because he believed that the Accounting Section was better equipped to determine the requirements for the disbursement of funds;
- in signing the issue slips, neither did he make it appear that the construction materials listed therein have been issued and delivered to the farmers’ organizations since he had no participation in the procurement, canvass, delivery, receipt and acceptance of materials, nor did he certify on the delivery and acceptance of the materials, which functions pertained to the Reports of Inspection and the Certificate of Acceptance by the farmers’ organizations concerned; and
- the issue slips were not intended to facilitate the release of funds because under the memorandum of agreement, full payment shall be released upon the recipient’s submission of official receipts for the actual expenses incurred in the construction of the MPDP, subject to the issuance by the DA of the Certificate of Inspection on the full completion of the projects, which he had no participation in the issuance thereof.[17]
By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer x x x It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office[.][24] (emphasis and italics ours)