Case Digest (G.R. No. 213581)
Facts:
The case involves the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as the petitioner and the Commission on Audit (COA) as the respondent. The events leading to the case began on May 27, 2005, when Mariam Gayak, a Bank Officer III at the BSP's Cotabato Branch, was transferred to the Davao Regional Office. Following her transfer, Verlina Silo and Evelyn T. Yap were designated as Acting Bank Officer III and Bank Officer II, respectively. On June 7, 2005, Silo transferred her cash accountabilities, amounting to P988,105,695.00, to Yap. After six months, Gayak returned, necessitating Yap to turn over her cash accountability back to Silo.
From December 5, 2005, to January 6, 2006, the COA conducted an audit of Yap's cash accountability. On December 22, 2005, after auditing Silo's accountability, the COA Audit Team began auditing Yap's cash. That same day, Silo sent a text message to Perry B. Dequita, the manager of the Cotabato Branch, admitting to misappropriating part of Y...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 213581)
Facts:
Background and Transfer of Responsibilities
- On May 27, 2005, Mariam Gayak, Bank Officer III of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), Cotabato Branch, was transferred to the Davao Regional Office. Verlina Silo and Evelyn T. Yap were designated as Acting Bank Officer III and Bank Officer II, respectively.
- On June 7, 2005, Silo transferred her cash accountabilities amounting to P988,105,695.00 to Yap. Six months later, Gayak returned, and Yap had to transfer her cash accountability back to Silo.
Audit and Discovery of Shortage
- From December 5, 2005, to January 6, 2006, the Commission on Audit (COA) audited Yap's cash accountability. On December 22, 2005, Silo sent a text message to Perry Dequita, BSP Cotabato Branch Manager, admitting to misappropriating a portion of Yap's accountability.
- The COA Audit Team conducted a piece-by-piece cash count and discovered a shortage of P32,701,600.00 from Yap's cash accountabilities. Silo executed an affidavit on December 23, 2005, admitting sole responsibility for the cash shortage.
Investigation and Administrative Proceedings
- BSP formed a Fact-Finding Task Force, and Silo appeared before it, admitting to stealing cash for five years. She assigned her benefits to BSP to cover the misappropriated amount.
- On January 18, 2006, COA directed Yap to explain and return the cash shortage. Yap denied responsibility, attaching Silo's affidavit admitting sole liability.
- COA filed administrative and criminal charges against Dequita, Silo, and Yap before the Office of the Ombudsman. On July 31, 2006, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges against Yap and Dequita, finding Silo solely liable.
COA's Decision and BSP's Petition
- On April 12, 2013, COA denied Yap's request to extinguish her liability and held her, Dequita, and other officers jointly and solidarily liable for the cash shortage. BSP filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that Silo had admitted sole responsibility and that the Ombudsman's dismissal of charges against Yap and Dequita was final.
Issue:
- Whether the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its April 12, 2013 Decision, holding Yap, Dequita, and other officers jointly and solidarily liable for the cash shortage.
- Whether Yap, Dequita, and other officers were denied due process in the COA proceedings.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside COA's Decision and Resolution, holding that Yap, Dequita, and other officers were denied due process. The Court emphasized that COA cannot disregard the Ombudsman's final decision and must adhere to the principles of due process in its proceedings.