PLAI

Decision

Office Of The Ombudsman v. Heidi M. Estandarte Andthe Court Of Appeals

G.R. No. 168670 · 2007-04-13 · SR, J. · LawPhil

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. HEIDI M. ESTANDARTE andTHE COURT OF APPEALS, TWENTIETH DIVISION, Respondents.

SR., J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85585 dated June 14, 2005 which set aside the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) finding respondent Heidi M. Estandarte guilty of grave misconduct. The antecedents are as follows: On August 17, 1998, People's Graftwatch, through its Chairman, Dr. Patricio Y. Tan, referred to the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), for immediate investigation, a complaint of the Faculty Club and Department Heads of the Ramon Torres National High School (hereinafter the Faculty Club) against Heidi Estandarte, the school principal. The complaint consisted of 33 allegations of improprieties ranging from illegal handling of school funds, irregular financial transactions, perjury, and abuse of authority.2 However, the complaint was not subscribed and sworn to by the complainant, and not supported by the sworn statements of witnesses.

The complaint also lacked a statement of non-forum shopping as required under CSC Resolution No. 95-3099 dated May 9, 1995.3 The Ombudsman (Visayas) treated the matter as a request for assistance, and docketed the complaint as RAS-VIS 98-1030. On August 31, 1998, the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports Regional Office VI (DECS-Region VI) and the Commission on Audit (COA) for appropriate action pursuant to Section 15(2) of Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989.4 On September 29, 1998, the DECS-Region VI found that the complaint did not comply with the formalities under Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as The Administrative Code of 1987. Thus, it dismissed the complaint, without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate one.

Undaunted, the Faculty Club filed a formal complaint - sworn and subscribed to by the complainants - with DECS-Region VI on February 5, 1999.5 However, in a letter6 dated February 12, 1999, the said office dismissed the complaint outright for lack of verification and certification against forum shopping. On March 22, 1999, the DECS-Region VI received the requisite verification and certification.7 This case was entitled "Faculty and Department Heads of the Ramon Torres National High School, Bago City v. Heidi Estandarte." On April 19, 1999, the DECS-Region VI required Estandarte to answer the charges in writing.8 Estandarte filed her answer to the complaint on June 7, 1999.9 Thereafter, a Special Investigating Committee was created to hear the case; DECS-Region VI approved the composition of the Committee in a 1st Indorsement dated July 26, 1999.10 The Committee issued a subpoena duces tecum addressed to the State Auditor assigned to the case, requiring him to produce the original copies of certain documents.

The State Auditor, however, replied that he could not comply with the subpoena because the documents are being used by the Ombudsman (Visayas) in the criminal and administrative cases pending before it which concerned the same parties.11 On September 17, 1999, the Committee held a pre-hearing conference.12 It issued a 1st Indorsement on December 6, 1999, recommending the dismissal of the case on the ground of forum shopping. Meanwhile, the COA referred the complaint against Estandarte to the Provincial Auditor for the Province of Negros Occidental, Crispin A. Pinaga, Jr. Pursuant thereto, Pinaga conducted an investigation and submitted his report to the Ombudsman (Visayas). He found that Estandarte's actions in connection with 24 of the 33 allegations in the complaint were "within the bounds of propriety."13 The Provincial Auditor made the following findings: Complaint No.

2 - The collections of miscellaneous fee of Ten Pesos (P10.00) (Annex II) per student upon enrolment which was not authorized by DECS. As explained by the principal in her letter dated June 8, 1998, this practice had been going on when she assumed thereat and the same has the implied permission of the PTA (Annex III). Finding: The imposition of this miscellaneous fee of Ten Pesos (₱10.00) is in violation of DECS Order No. 27 s.

1995 dated May 24, 1995 (Annex IV). Complaint 19 & 24 The principal, Miss Heidi M. Estandarte bought the .38 Caliber Handgun and Shotgun which she registered under her name, which should not be done so because the money she used to purchase said firearm came from the student government fund. Finding: The firearms as alleged by the principal were intended for the use of the security guard of the school.

However, the arm dealer had secured the licenses of the firearms in the name of the principal. These firearms had been turned-over to the School Supply Officer (Annex V). Representations had been made for the transfer of the license to the school, Ramon Torres National High School (Annex VI-A).

Complaint 21 & 31 She sold, kept and disbursed the income of the old newspaper with no accounting by the COA since 1994. Complaint 23 & 25 The principal Ms. Estandarte accepted cash and in kind donations without being properly channeled and accounted first by the property custodian and the cash without first [being] deposited in the Trust Fund. Finding: Cash donations as acknowledged by Ms. Heidi Estandarte are as follows: Source Amount Mrs. Ma.

Belen J. Elizalde (not Phil-Am Life) (Annex VI) ₱ 10,000.00 Coca Cola Bottlers (Annex VIII) 100,000.00 Mr. Kojima (Annex IX) 53,400.00 Sales - Old Newspaper (Annex X) 3,949.00 T o t a l