Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6686)
Facts:
The case involves Bartolome Bartolome, the petitioner and appellee, against the Auditor General, the respondent and appellant. Bartolome has been an employee in the treasury of Cavite City since 1927 and served as the acting cashier. On an unspecified date, he exchanged a U.S. Treasury Check No. 443475, issued to Anastacio Alcantara for the amount of $1,761.30, for P3,522.60. Bartolome cashed the check presented by an individual claiming to be Anastacio Alcantara, who provided only a local police officer's identification, Lorenzo Tolentino, as verification. However, the individual was not the actual payee, as there were discrepancies in the name and address. The check explicitly stated it was "payable only in the Manila Branch of the National City Bank of New York."
Upon discovering the irregularity, the Insular Auditor, through Chief Supervising Auditor B. Fernandez, informed the City Auditor of Cavite that the payment made by Bartolome was a personal charge...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6686)
Facts:
- Employment and Role: Bartolome Bartolome was an employee in the treasury of Cavite City since 1927 and was acting as the interim cashier.
- Check Encashment Incident: Bartolome exchanged a U.S. Treasury Check No. 443475, issued to Anastacio Alcantara of Alangilang, Candon, Ilocos Sur, for ₱3,522.60. The check was presented by an unknown individual claiming to be Anastacio Alcantara from 277 Lopez Jaena Street, Cavite City.
- Identification Issue: The individual was identified by a local policeman, Lorenzo Tolentino, who was neither responsible nor solvent. The person presenting the check was not the actual payee, as there were discrepancies in both the name and address.
- Check Restrictions: The check explicitly stated it was "payable only at the Manila Branch of the National City Bank of New York."
- Auditor General's Decision: The Auditor General ruled that Bartolome violated Section 542 of the Manual of Instructions to Treasurers by cashing the check without proper identification. The Auditor General ordered the withholding of half of Bartolome's salary and that of Lorenzo Tolentino until the amount was recovered.
- Legal Action: Bartolome filed a mandamus case in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, which ruled in his favor, stating that the Auditor General and other officials had no authority to withhold his salary.
Issue:
- Whether the Auditor General had the authority to order the withholding of Bartolome's salary for the unauthorized encashment of the check.
- Whether Bartolome was negligent in cashing the check without proper identification and in violation of the check's restrictions.
- Whether the mandamus was the proper remedy for Bartolome to recover his withheld salary.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cavite. It held that:
- The Auditor General had the constitutional and statutory authority to order the withholding of Bartolome's salary to recover the amount lost due to his negligence.
- Bartolome was negligent in cashing the check without verifying the identity of the payee and ignoring the check's restrictions.
- The mandamus was improper because Bartolome failed to prove his lack of responsibility for the loss and did not appeal the Auditor General's decision to the President, as required by law.
Ratio:
- Authority of the Auditor General: Under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the Constitution and Section 624 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Auditor General has the power to examine, audit, and settle accounts, including withholding salaries to satisfy debts owed to the government.
- Negligence of the Cashier: Bartolome violated Section 542 of the Manual of Instructions to Treasurers by cashing the check without proper identification and ignoring the check's restrictions. This negligence made him personally liable for the loss.
- Proper Remedy: Bartolome should have appealed the Auditor General's decision to the President, as provided by law, instead of filing a mandamus case. His failure to do so rendered his legal action improper.
- Presumption of Responsibility: In the absence of evidence proving Bartolome's lack of fault, the presumption of responsibility stands, and the withholding of his salary was justified.