The Supreme Court held that a school principal and a teachers’ association president were guilty of Grave Misconduct for leasing school property without proper authority and mishandling funds. This decision underscores the high standard of accountability expected from public officials and reinforces the importance of adhering to established procedures, especially when managing public resources. The Court emphasized that even well-intentioned actions cannot excuse the violation of laws designed to ensure transparency and prevent corruption.

School’s Out: When a Lease Agreement Led to Dismissal for Grave Misconduct

The case of Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. Eufrocina Carlos Dionisio and Winifredo Salcedo Molina, G.R. No. 220700, revolves around a lease agreement involving a public school, Barasoain Memorial Elementary School, and a drug store, Sariling Atin Drug Store owned by the spouses Editha and Eduardo Ponce. Eufrocina Carlos Dionisio, the school principal, and Winifredo Salcedo Molina, the president of the school’s Teacher’s Association, were found to have entered into an unauthorized lease agreement, accepting significant donations and advance rent from the complainants without proper authorization or adherence to government regulations. This led to administrative charges and, ultimately, a Supreme Court decision that highlights the responsibilities of public officials in managing public property and funds.

The sequence of events began when the spouses Ponce sought to lease a portion of the school grounds to establish their drug store. Dionisio, the school principal, indicated that she could facilitate the lease, but advised structuring the payments as donations to circumvent standard Department of Education (DepEd) procedures. An agreement was made where only a fraction of the total annual rent would be officially recorded, with the remainder handled discreetly by Dionisio and the Teachers’ Association. The complainants, acting on this advice, provided substantial funds to Dionisio, including advance rent and donations intended for the school. However, issues arose when another drug store was slated to open near the complainants’ establishment, violating the exclusivity promised to them. This prompted the spouses Ponce to investigate, revealing irregularities in the lease agreement and the handling of the funds.

The complainants discovered that the lease agreement lacked the necessary DepEd approval and that the Teachers’ Association was not a legal entity authorized to enter into such agreements. Further, the funds provided were not accounted for according to government accounting standards, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. Consequently, the spouses Ponce filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, alleging violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and money laundering. The Ombudsman initially found Dionisio and Molina guilty of Simple Misconduct, but later upgraded the charges to Grave Misconduct upon reconsideration, leading to their dismissal from service. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, reinstating the original finding of Simple Misconduct, prompting the Ombudsman to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on whether the actions of Dionisio and Molina constituted Grave Misconduct or merely Simple Misconduct. Misconduct, in general, involves the transgression of established rules or unlawful behavior by a public officer. For it to be considered grave, the misconduct must be serious and imply wrongful intention, directly related to the officer’s duties, and amount to maladministration or willful neglect. A key factor differentiating Grave Misconduct from Simple Misconduct is the presence of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.

In this case, the Supreme Court found that the actions of Dionisio and Molina met the criteria for Grave Misconduct. First, they lacked the authority to lease the school property, which belonged to the Provincial Government of Bulacan. Section 18 of Republic Act 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, grants local government units the power to lease or dispose of real property held in their proprietary capacity. The respondents bypassed this requirement. Although the Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Bulacan later ratified the MOA, this was done after the fact and did not retroactively legitimize their initial unauthorized actions.

Section 18. Power to Generate and Apply Resources. – Local government units shall have the power and authority to establish an organization that shall be responsible for the efficient and effective implementation of their development plans, program objectives and priorities; to create their own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees, and charges which shall accrue exclusively for their use and disposition and which shall be retained by them; to have a just share in national taxes which shall be automatically and directly released to them without need of any further action; to have an equitable share in the proceeds from the utilization and development of the national wealth and resources within their respective territorial jurisdictions including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits; to acquire, develop, lease, encumber, alienate, or otherwise dispose of real or personal property held by them in their proprietary capacity and to apply their resources and assets for productive, developmental, or welfare purposes, in the exercise or furtherance of their governmental or proprietary powers and functions and thereby ensure their development into self­-reliant communities and active participants in the attainment of national goals. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Second, the respondents failed to uphold the principle of accountability expected of public officers. They claimed that the funds received from the complainants were used for public purposes, such as constructing a school canteen and procuring educational equipment. However, they did not provide official receipts or documentation to substantiate these claims. This lack of transparency violated established accounting and auditing procedures.

Third, even if the funds were indeed used for the school’s benefit, the respondents failed to comply with the requirements of Republic Act 9184, the Government Procurement Reform Act. This law mandates that all government procurement be done through competitive bidding to ensure transparency and prevent corruption. While alternative methods of procurement exist, the respondents did not demonstrate that they were justified in bypassing the competitive bidding process.

The respondents’ argument that they were unaware of these legal requirements was dismissed by the Court, citing the principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one. The Court noted that Dionisio herself acknowledged the potential complexities of leasing the school property according to DepEd rules, indicating an awareness of the regulations they were circumventing. The Supreme Court stated:

By and large, these exhibit respondents’ clear intent to violate the law and/or flagrant disregard of established rules, thus, justifying the finding that they are indeed liable for Grave Misconduct.

As a result of being found guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dionisio and Molina faced severe penalties. The Supreme Court ordered their dismissal from government service, cancellation of their civil service eligibility, forfeiture of their retirement benefits (excluding accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government. The Court acknowledged the potential for improving public schools but emphasized the need for adherence to established rules and regulations. The Supreme Court reiterated that compliance with the applicable rules and regulations gains even more importance considering that what is involved is the accountability of public officers.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the actions of a school principal and a teachers’ association president in leasing school property without proper authority constituted Grave Misconduct, warranting their dismissal from service. The Supreme Court ultimately found that it did, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established rules and regulations in handling public property and funds.
Who were the parties involved?	The petitioner was the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. The respondents were Eufrocina Carlos Dionisio, the school principal, and Winifredo Salcedo Molina, the president of the school’s Teacher’s Association; and the complainants were the Spouses Editha and Eduardo Ponce.
What is Grave Misconduct?	Grave Misconduct is a serious transgression of established rules by a public officer that implies wrongful intention and is directly related to their official duties, often involving corruption or a flagrant disregard of established rules. It is distinguished from Simple Misconduct by the presence of these elements.
What laws did the respondents violate?	The respondents violated Section 18 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160) by leasing property without authority, as well as provisions of the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184) by failing to conduct competitive bidding. Additionally, they breached principles of public accountability by failing to properly document the use of funds.
What was the ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and found Dionisio and Molina guilty of Grave Misconduct. The Court ordered their dismissal from government service, cancellation of their civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (excluding accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government.
Why did the Supreme Court reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision?	The Supreme Court found that the respondents’ actions demonstrated a clear intent to violate the law and a flagrant disregard of established rules, which are key elements of Grave Misconduct. The Court emphasized that the respondents lacked the authority to lease the property, failed to account for the funds properly, and did not comply with procurement regulations.
What is the significance of this case?	This case underscores the high standard of accountability expected from public officials and the importance of adhering to established procedures, especially when managing public resources. It serves as a reminder that even well-intentioned actions cannot excuse the violation of laws designed to ensure transparency and prevent corruption.
What penalties are associated with Grave Misconduct?	Grave Misconduct is a grave offense that carries the penalty of dismissal from service, cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (excluding accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder to public officials about their responsibilities in managing public resources and adhering to established legal frameworks. The ruling highlights that good intentions do not justify bypassing legal requirements, and that accountability and transparency are paramount in public service. The consequences for failing to uphold these principles can be severe, as demonstrated by the dismissal and disqualification of the respondents in this case.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON VS. EUFROCINA CARLOS DIONISIO AND WINIFREDO SALCEDO MOLINA, G.R. No. 220700, July 10, 2017