Case Digest (G.R. No. 211937)
Facts:
Rosemarie B. Bintudan was Disbursing Officer II at the DILG-CAR Provincial Office in Lagawe, Ifugao when unidentified robbers forcibly entered the office on the night of March 16, 2005 and stole cash from the safety vault amounting to P114,907.30. She reported the incident and later requested relief from accountability for the loss, but the COA Legal Services Sector (LSS) denied her request, a ruling later affirmed by the COA, Commission Proper.
The COA found that she (a) allowed the number combination of the safety vault to be posted on the vault’s door, (b) withdrew the salaries/wages from a nearby bank early for the period March 16 to 31, and (c) did not inform the security guard that a considerable amount of cash was kept in the vault. The petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner was guilty of negligence that barred her relief from accountability despite the robbery.
- Whether the petitioner’s petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was a proper remedy to assail the COA en banc decision.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the COA decision. It held that the proper remedy to assail COA decisions is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, not a Rule 45 petition, and that the petition also failed on the merits.
On the substantive issue, the Court found that the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion and that its negligence findings were supported by substantial evidence. Given the petitioner’s duty as an accountable officer and her acts showing want of care, the Court sustained the denial of relief.
Ratio:
The Court ruled that a Rule 45 petition is available only from decisions or final orders of lower courts, while review of COA decisions is governed by Rule 64 under Article IX, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution and tied to the certiorari nature of the remedy.
On negligence, the Court treated negligence as a relative concept dependent on the situation and required diligence, and held that the petitioner’s conduct fell below the care required of a disbursing officer safeguarding public funds. The Court emphasized that she tolerated a public posting of the vault’s number combination and failed to take measures that would have prevented the vault from being opened “with ease,” while she was also found to have withdrawn the salaries early and kept the funds despite not informing security.
Doctrine:
- COA decisions may be annulled only upon a showing that the COA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- (Get Pro to unlock 7 more doctrines)