THE Commission on Audit has affirmed the one-year suspension imposed on a state auditor who was pronounced guilty of grave misconduct for accepting cash and material benefits from an audited agency.
In a five-page decision, COA Chair Michael G. Aguinaldo and Commissioner Roland C. Pondoc denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent asking that the assailed ruling dated February 20, 2019 be set aside.
The COA Commission Proper, however, upheld the previous findings and declared the motion bereft of merit despite the auditor’s contention that he was denied due process, citing the absence of a hearing and non-application of technical rules on evidence.
It pointed out that in administrative proceedings, a trial type of hearing is not required and technical rules of procedures are not strictly applicable.
“The movant must be reminded that administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law. Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process,” the commission said.
By being afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in his defense, the COA said the requirement of due process had been served.
The auditor was accused of accepting a service vehicle, reimbursement for fuel expenses, a MacBook computer, and a mobile phone.
Officials of the Cavite State University likewise submitted letters and statements disclosing that the auditor “demanded and received honoraria and Emergency Financial Assistance.”
The COA said the respondent’s actions violated Section 54 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS).
“It must be stressed that Grave Misconduct has always been and should remain anathema in the civil service. It inevitably reflects on the fitness of a civil servant to continue in office.
When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in the government,” the COA said.
