COMMISSION
OF SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE, VIOLATION OF REVENUE REGULATION NO. 4-93
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, et al vs. LILIA B. ORGANO
G.R. No. 14995, February 26, 2004
Facts:
BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, et al vs. LILIA B. ORGANO
G.R. No. 14995, February 26, 2004
Facts:
Respondent Lilia B. Organo is a revenue collection officer of the BIR,
Revenue Region 7, Quezon City. On May 13, 1997, then BIR Commissioner Liwayway
Vinsons-Chato filed with the BIR a formal administrative charge against
petitioner for grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Respondent filed a verified answer, in which she admitted that she had no specific authority allowing her to receive withholding tax returns and check payments. She alleged in her counter-affidavit that her duties as collection officer consisted merely of collecting delinquent accounts and performing other tasks that her supervisor would assign to her from time to time; and that her acceptance of the withholding tax returns and check payments for transmittal to BIR-authorized banks was a mere assistance extended to taxpayers, without any consideration.
The administrative case against respondent was transferred to the Office of Ombudsman, which adopted the “proceedings, evidence/exhibits presented at the administrative proceedings before the BIR.” In due course, it rendered its decision finding respondent guilty of grave misconduct.
Issue:
Respondent filed a verified answer, in which she admitted that she had no specific authority allowing her to receive withholding tax returns and check payments. She alleged in her counter-affidavit that her duties as collection officer consisted merely of collecting delinquent accounts and performing other tasks that her supervisor would assign to her from time to time; and that her acceptance of the withholding tax returns and check payments for transmittal to BIR-authorized banks was a mere assistance extended to taxpayers, without any consideration.
The administrative case against respondent was transferred to the Office of Ombudsman, which adopted the “proceedings, evidence/exhibits presented at the administrative proceedings before the BIR.” In due course, it rendered its decision finding respondent guilty of grave misconduct.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is liable for grave misconduct.
Held:
Held:
The Court held that by accommodating and accepting withholding tax
returns and checks payments respondent disregarded as established BIR rule.
Revenue Regulation No. 4-93 requires payments through the banks precisely to
avoid, whenever possible, BIR employee’s direct receipt of tax payments. Yet,
respondent was not deterred from making accommodations that circumvented this
provision.
To compound matters, her acts were essential ingredients paving the way for the commission of fraud against, and consequent damage to, the government. Her claimed ignorance thereof cannot erase her liability. Obviously, she disregarded the established practice and rules. In the face of her silence, the fact that the checks ended up in an unauthorized BIR account eloquently speaks, at the very least, of her gross negligence in taking care of collections that should not have passed through her hands in the first place.
Because of her complicity in the transgression of the cited BIR regulation as well as her gross negligence, respondent is administratively liable for simple misconduct and is suspended for six months.
To compound matters, her acts were essential ingredients paving the way for the commission of fraud against, and consequent damage to, the government. Her claimed ignorance thereof cannot erase her liability. Obviously, she disregarded the established practice and rules. In the face of her silence, the fact that the checks ended up in an unauthorized BIR account eloquently speaks, at the very least, of her gross negligence in taking care of collections that should not have passed through her hands in the first place.
Because of her complicity in the transgression of the cited BIR regulation as well as her gross negligence, respondent is administratively liable for simple misconduct and is suspended for six months.