CPA collection officer sacked for dishonesty

CEBU, Philippines - For a discrepancy of more than P41,000, a special collection officer of the Cebu Port Authority in Poro, Camotes Island was dismissed from service.

Graft investigator Irish Amores recommended the dismissal of Danilo Sultan. Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Pelagio Apostol approved the penalty.

Amores said Sultan was found guilty of serious dishonesty.

“The defense raised by respondent that there was another person actually doing the collection at his station in the person of Genesis Cunanan, an agency-hired employee, cannot be well-taken,” Amores’ decision reads.

The complaint was filed by Angelo Verdan, the general manager of CPA. He alleged that Sultan falsified the amount in the Commission on Audit (COA) copy of the official receipts.

Verdan said that sometime April 2009, an audit team from CPA went to Poro and requested regular port users to present records and copies of the official receipts that the CPA has issued to them. At that time, it was only a certain Samuelito Garciano who showed his records.

Records reportedly showed discrepancies in the amounts reflected on the official receipts that Sultan had issued to Garciano.

“The original copies of the official receipts (Garciano’s copy) and the duplicate copy of the COA, in the transactions covered by the Summary Report, shows that respondent merely collected a total of P981.09 when the amount he (respondent) actually collected is P37,426.20 or a difference of P36,445.11,” Amores’ decision reads.

Verdan said the audit team also discovered another discrepancy on the part of respondent when he issued a receipt to a certain Lanie.

“In Lanie’s case, respondent actually collected the amount of P6,055.72 instead of P859.50 as what appears in the COA receipt or a difference of P5,196.22,” decision reads.

Verdan added that when he directed respondent to account the missing funds amounting to P41,641.33, the latter failed to do so and asked that he be allowed to pay for the lost amount.

In her ruling, Amores said Sultan’s defense could not overthrow the evidences presented by the complainant.

She likewise said that Sultan could not neglect the fact that he expressed his apologies and expressed his willingness to pay for the lost amount. — (FREEMAN)