Grave Misconduct for Teachers Who Leased School Property Without Authority

The Supreme Court has ruled that public school officials who lease school premises without proper authority commit grave misconduct, not merely simple misconduct, and may be dismissed from service. In Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. Dionisio (G.R. No. 220700, July 10, 2017), the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Ombudsman's finding of grave misconduct against a school principal and a teachers' association president. The ruling underscores that noble intentions do not excuse public officers from complying with laws on public property, funds, and procurement.

The Facts of the Case

Spouses Editha and Eduardo Ponce sought to lease a portion of the grounds of Barasoain Memorial Elementary School to put up a drug store. School Principal Eufrocina Dionisio allegedly suggested that only P36,000.00 of the P120,000.00 annual rent be recorded, with the balance disguised as a donation. The spouses eventually paid P1,280,000.00 — representing advance rent and donations — and received a notarized Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by Winifredo Molina as President of the Teachers' Association.

When the spouses later learned the MOA had no Department of Education (DepEd) approval and that the Teachers' Association had no legal personality, they filed complaints before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman initially found the respondents guilty of simple misconduct, but upon reconsideration, upgraded the finding to grave misconduct and imposed dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating simple misconduct. The Ombudsman appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The sole issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly held the respondents administratively liable only for simple misconduct, rather than grave misconduct.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ombudsman, holding that the respondents committed grave misconduct. The Court distinguished grave misconduct from simple misconduct: the former requires the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.

The Court found these elements present for three reasons. First, the respondents had no authority to lease the school premises. Under Section 18 of Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991), only the local government unit may lease or dispose of real property held in its proprietary capacity. The school premises were owned by the Provincial Government of Bulacan. Although the Sangguniang Panlalawigan later passed a resolution ratifying the MOA, it came more than four years after execution and after the Ombudsman's ruling — a mere afterthought that did not cure the lack of authority at the time of the transaction.

Second, the respondents failed to observe the constitutional principle of accountability of public officers. They could not produce official receipts or documents showing how the money received was spent, despite claiming it went to school improvements.

Third, even assuming the funds were used for the school canteen and equipment, the respondents failed to comply with Republic Act No. 9184 (the Government Procurement Reform Act), which mandates competitive bidding for government procurement. No justification for resorting to alternative methods was shown.

The Court rejected the respondents' defense of ignorance of the law, noting that Dionisio herself told the complainants that following DepEd rules would entail a "long and complicated procedure." This showed awareness of the applicable rules.

The Penalty

Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal even for the first offense. The Court ordered the respondents' dismissal, cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.

Practical Takeaways

• Public school officials cannot lease school property without proper authority. Only the local government unit may dispose of or lease real property held in its proprietary capacity under the Local Government Code.
• Noble intentions do not excuse non-compliance. Using funds for school improvements does not cure the failure to follow laws on public funds, procurement, and accountability.
• Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Public officers, including teachers, are expected to know and follow rules governing public property and funds.
• Ratification cannot retroactively cure unauthorized acts. A later resolution approving an unauthorized transaction does not erase the administrative liability that attached at the time of the act.
• Grave misconduct carries severe penalties. Dismissal, forfeiture of benefits, and perpetual disqualification may be imposed even for a first offense where corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules is shown.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.