G.R. No. 235764 - Crisol, Jr. vs. Commission on Audit

On September 17, 2010, District Collector Atty. Rogel Gatchalian designated Arnel Tabije as Special Collection Officer (SCO) at the Collection Division, Customs District II-A, Bureau of Customs (BOC).
Shortly thereafter, in December 2010, Tabije ceased reporting for work, prompting Atty. Gatchalian to issue a directive for him to report to the appropriate superior (either the Chief of the Administrative Division or of the Collection Division).

On January 27, 2011, petitioner Rafael M. Crisol, Jr., the Chief of the Cash Division, conducted an initial audit on the collections and deposits handled by Tabije.
The audit revealed that Tabije had failed to deposit collections amounting to Php425,555.52 and had not turned over the auction fund passbook to the office.

On February 28, 2011, petitioner sent a letter to Tabije, informing him of the discrepancies and requiring him to settle the unremitted collections; however, Tabije failed to respond.
On March 28, 2011, Atty. Gatchalian directed petitioner to refer the matter to the Audit Team Leader (ATL) of the COA at BOC, Port Area, Manila for further investigation.

During the investigation conducted by Special Investigator Jaime Regala, Tabije was absent despite being duly notified, leading Regala to recommend charges for Dishonesty, Unauthorized Absences, Inefficiency, and Gross Neglect of Duty.
Following the investigation, the ATL and the Supervising Auditor issued Notice of Charge (NC) No. 2011-001-101(10) on October 12, 2011, implicating Tabije, Atty. Gatchalian (as head of office), and petitioner (as Chief of Cash Collection Division) for the unremitted amount of Php425,555.53.

In Decision No. 2012-006 dated June 8, 2012, the director of the COA National Government Sector (NGS) Cluster A granted the request by Atty. Gatchalian and petitioner for exclusion from liability, reasoning that their inclusion in the NC was solely due to their positions and not because of direct participation in the irregular transaction.
However, upon automatic review, COA, through Decision No. 2016-331 dated November 9, 2016, reversed the exclusion of petitioner from liability and forwarded the case to the Office of the Ombudsman for potential criminal charges.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in COA Resolution dated September 7, 2017.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari challenging the COA’s decision as a grave abuse of discretion for disapproving his exclusion from liability.
During the pendency of the petition, petitioner submitted a Manifestation on February 14, 2019, asserting that Tabije had settled the unremitted collection as evidenced by an Official Receipt and an NSSDC dated February 7, 2019.
Despite the settlement by Tabije, petitioner maintained that the justiciable controversy regarding his alleged liability persisted, thus warranting judicial review.

Whether petitioner, as the Chief of the Cash Collection Division, can be held civilly liable for Tabije’s failure to remit collections.

Examination of the supervisory role of petitioner and whether his oversight constituted a sufficient participation in the irregularity.
Consideration of the legal standard that a superior public officer is liable only with a clear showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence.

Whether the disapproval of petitioner’s exclusion from liability by the COA constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Analysis of the COA’s reversal of its own initial decision which had granted petitioner exclusion based on mere procedural inclusion due to his office position.
Evaluation of the implications of the settled collection on the justiciable controversy of petitioner’s liability.

Whether petitioner’s actions in monitoring and reporting the irregularities were adequate or could be construed as gross negligence.

Inquiry into whether the petitioner, by failing to continuously monitor Tabije’s transactions, acted with a conscious indifference to his supervisory duty.
Deliberation on whether such failure automatically rises to the level of gross negligence or remains within the bounds of ordinary negligence.