It was her responsibility when she signed that disbursement voucher for the Regional Director to verify the accuracy and completeness of the supporting documents presented to her.

CEB-SP 01492 dated July 20, 2006. Sμch argument, which was copied entirely from the case of To Our mind, the facts established and the evidence presented support the finding of Fajardo's guilt.Fajardo was charged with serious dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.Dishonesty has been defined as the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive, or betray, or intent to violate the truth. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the official or employee’s act of unlawfully or wrongfully using his position to gain benefit for one’s self.Seville signed on the rare happenstance that both the Regional Director and the Assistant Regional Director for Administration were absent. Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." Rosario project was presented to her for signature was a coincidence that cannot be imputed to her for she could not have orchestrated that for her gain, absent evidence to the contrary. She offered to settle her accountability by waiving all her rights to bonuses and monetary benefits for 2008 and paying PhP 300,000.00. That both signatories were absent when the Sto.

3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Section 15(3) of R.A. No. 18 In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must be manifest and established by substantial evidence. Charity Sweepstakes Office is hereby directed to implement this Decision and to submit promptly a Compliance Report within five (5) days from receipt indicating the OMB case number: OMB-C-A-09-0355-G, entitled "Mario J. Corral vs. Angelica A. Fajardo" to this Office, thru the Central Records Division, 2nct Floor, Ombudsman Building, Agham Road, Government Center, North Triangle, Diliman, 1128, Quezon City.Compliance is respectfully enjoined consistent with Sec. In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be evident.4 Misconduct, in the administrative sense, is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action.

02-99 and respondent’s failure to prove the elements to qualify petitioner’s acts as grave, warrant our finding that petitioner is guilty of Simple Misconduct.

Evidence of misappropriation of the missing funds is not required because the existence of shortage of funds and the failure to satisfactorily explain the same would suffice.Grave misconduct was committed when Fajardo failed to keep and account for cash and cash items in her custody.Lastly, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service was committed because the acts of Fajardo tarnished the image of PCSO, as the principal government agency for raising and providing funds for health programs, medical assistance and services, and charities of national character,I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Fajardo also claimed that she was forced to sign Certifications and Demands (Cash Examination Count Sheet), containing her alleged shortage, on two different occasions.WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence of guilt for Serious Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, respondent ANGELICA A. FAJARDO is hereby meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, with all its accessory penalties.Pursuant to Section 7, Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2006, the Chairman of the Philippine. In her letter, Fajardo did not question the regularity of the conduct of spot audits.In her Counter-Affidavit, Fajardo denied that spot audits were conducted; and if so, such were done contrary to established rules. Simple misconduct is a less grave offense and penalized by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense, under Section 52 (B) (2), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. When she was asked to expound on such shortage, she offered no satisfactory explanation for the same. The medium of the penalty shall be imposed where no mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present. Grave Misconduct; A The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: 1. Rosario, Ajuy, Iloilo.In grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be evident.Here, the COA charged petitioner Seville administratively because the government released funds for that particular ghost project in Sto. In its place, the Court FINDS petitioner Sonia V. Seville liable for SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and IMPOSES on her the penalty of three months suspension without pay in accordance with Section 54(b) of theUniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.b. Good faith implies honest intent, free from any knowledge of circumstances that ought to have prompted an individual to undertake an inquiry.While Seville merely substituted for the absent Regional Director at that time, it is not an excuse for lightly shirking from the latter’s duties and responsibilities. On July 20, 2006 the CA rendered a decision,The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision that found petitioner liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty for signing the disbursement voucher for the particular ghost MPDP in Sto. But she claimed that she acted in good faith, merely relying on the completeness and genuineness of the supporting documents that were shown to her. Subsequently, the investigation resulted in her exoneration, absent any proof that she took part in a conspiracy to defraud the government.Petitioner Seville filed a petition for review of the Deputy Ombudsman’s decision before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. However, Fajardo failed to account and to produce the missing funds, and to give a reasonable excuse for such shortage.In a Letter dated January 27, 2009, Fajardo admitted her mistake.