Coast Guard dismissed over P67.5M cash advance

The CA said the petitioner failed to prove that the items purchased were absolutely indispensable and urgent to dispense with the requirement of competitive bidding. #CoastGuarddismissed

The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed the decision of the Ombudsman dismissing from the service a Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) for his involvement in the anomalous utilization of cash advances in 2014 amounting to P67.5 million.

In an 11-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Myra Garcia Fernandez, the CA’s Fifth Division denied the petition for review filed by Mark Franklin Lim II, special service officer of the PCG, seeking the reversal of the decision issued by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (OMB-MOLEO) dated 19 July 2017.

The OMB-MOLEO found Lim guilty of serious dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and dismissed him from government service.

The dismissal stemmed from the separate criminal and administrative complaints filed by OMB-MOLEO against several officers of the PCG including Lim for malversation of public funds through falsification under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in relation to RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act (2003); and serious dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The complaints specifically alleged that in 2014, the PCG released various Special Cash Advances (SCA) to 21 Special Disbursing Officers (SDO) in the total amount of P67,533,289.73.

The P500,000 was released to Lim supposedly for the procurement of office supplies and Information Technology (IT) equipment.

The complaint was based on Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) dated 15 April 2015 issued by the Commission on Audit (CoA). The CoA, after conducting a review of the liquidation reports, confirmed the reported anomalies in the utilization of PCG funds, particularly with respect to liquidations of cash advances and reimbursements of expenses in 2014.

Cash advances made by PCG officers named in the complaint were found lacking in the required documentary support via Office Orders designating the recipients as SDO in violation of a CoA circular which requires heads of agencies to grant Special Cash Advances (SCA) only to duly designated disbursing officers.

The auditors found that the addresses of some dealers/suppliers were not indicated in the sales and cash invoices and official receipts and that upon confirmation and validation by CoA, some of these dealers/suppliers denied the transactions or issuing invoices or receipts.

For his part, Lim pointed out that he was designated as SDO of the Special Service Office (SSO) on 25 March 2013 and was authorized to disburse a maximum of P500,000.

Lim insisted that the questioned emergency purchase was properly supported by valid receipts and was justified under the Yolanda relief operation of the PCG.

He also claimed that he never participated in any spurious transaction for the liquidation of his cash advances; that he relied in good faith on the regularity in the performance of duty of his subordinates and the suppliers’ representatives; and that only a portion of the amount in the disbursement report or the total amount of P77,166.25, was included in the AOM having questionable receipts.

Petitioner argued that signatories to a questioned document do not automatically become conspirators to a crime; that as SDO with subordinates, it was not his duty to canvass, inspect and receive purchased items; and that his approval or certification of the documents prepared by subordinates was purely ministerial in nature.

But the CA held that there was no reversible error on the part of the OMB-MOLEO in holding that petitioner and the other PCG officers failed to comply with the foregoing requirements under RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act.

The CA said the petitioner failed to prove that the items purchased were absolutely indispensable and urgent to dispense with the requirement of competitive bidding; and that the PCG paid the lowest or most advantageous purchase price.

The appellate court added that the OMB-MOLEO correctly noted that the purchased items were not urgent in character but were actually regular and foreseeable office supplies and IT equipment.