In a 23-page decision, the CA’s Sixth Division “partially granted” a March 4, 2010 decision and a February 10, 2012 review by the Office of the Ombudsman finding Devanadera guilty of simple misconduct, simple neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of duty.
The CA, in its ruling penned by Associate Justice Romeo Barza, affirmed the Ombudsman rulings but said they were “subject to modifications.”
Among the modifications was the penalty imposed on Devanadera, who, aside from being a former Justice secretary, also served as Solicitor General during the Arroyo administration.
“In lieu of the penalty of one year without pay, she is ordered to pay a fine equivalent to her salary as government corporate counsel for six months,” the CA said.
The CA also ordered Devanadera to “restitute to the Office of Government Corporate Council trust liability account” an amount of P760,000.
The Ombudsman had convicted Devanadera and her former head executive assistant Rolando Faller in connection with an agreement with the GSIS to handle the extrajudicial foreclosure of delinquent real estate loans in 2007.
In exchange, the Chief Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) would get special assessment fees for its help.
The two officials allegedly received various amounts from the special assessment fee that the GSIS had put up, including P500,000 for Devanadera and P200,000 for Faller as attorney’s fees.
The Ombudsman, however, ruled that neither Devanadera nor Faller was entitled to such payment because it was against the provisions of Section 10, Chapter 3, Title IV, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 and the 2004 OGCC Office Order No. 0006.
According to the Ombudsman, Devanadera deposited into her personal bank account a check for P450,000—already minus the P50,000 withholding tax—while Faller encashed his P180,000 check, which was less P20,000 for the withholding tax.
In explaining the modifications it made on the Ombudsman rulings, the CA said even the Commission on Audit had already said it “thought the petitioner’s actions were permissible under the law.”
“Furthermore, the records of the case even show that monies received by petitioner and Faller were subjected to taxes before they received the same,” the CA division said, adding these considerations “entitle petitioner to claim good faith.” — KBK, GMA News
