Case Digest (G.R. No. L-49535)
Facts:
Romana M. Cruz v. Hon. Francisco Tantuico and Hon. Gregorio G. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-49535, October 28, 1988, the Supreme Court Third Division, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Romana M. Cruz was a Cashier IV in the Cash Division of the Bureau of the Treasury. An investigation disclosed a scheme by a “syndicate” of Budget Commission and Department of Education and Culture (DEC) employees who used falsified service records to cause the issuance of numerous treasury warrants payable to fictitious or “ghost” teachers in Region IX. Some sixty-eight warrants were involved in the broader anomaly; twenty-eight of those, with a total face value of P21,545.08, are the subject of this case.
The questioned warrants, signed by authorized DEC signatories, were presented for payment and encashed by Cruz in her capacity as paying teller. The presenting party on several occasions was Editha Gonzales, a bona fide DEC employee known personally to Cruz and who regularly cashed warrants with her. After discovery of the fraud, the Bureau of the Treasury’s National Cashier initially recommended pursuing restitution from the falsifiers rather than charging Cruz, who was said to have acted in good faith. Nevertheless, upon request of the Auditor assigned to the Treasury Vault and Banking Audit Division, the National Cashier made charge-backs; the first charge-back to Cruz was recorded on August 17, 1976 (P15,308.91) and increased on August 23, 1976 (P6,236.17), aggregating P21,545.08. The Auditor formally demanded production of the missing funds and the Acting National Cashier required Cruz to increase her cash accountability.
By 2nd indorsement dated October 25, 1976, respondent Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr., Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA), directed that Cruz restore and restitute P21,545.08 and, in case of failure, that her salary be withheld pursuant to Section 624 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Bureau of the Treasury, however, through a 5th indorsement, expressed disagreement with COA’s view and recommended that the loss be charged to the DEC, not to Cruz. Cruz filed a request for reconsideration on February 20, 1978 and sought issuance of a clearance in connection with her retirement effective March 30, 1978.
By 8th indorsement the COA Acting Chairman denied reconsideration; the respondent Gregorio G. Mendoza, Treasurer of the Philippines, informed Cruz by letter dated November 13, 1978 that the value of the twenty‑eight treasury warrants (P21,545.08) would be deducted from her retirement benefits. Prior to retirement, Cruz’s salaries were not withheld; upon retirement she was cleared of money and property responsibilities except for the P21,545.08 account. The Bureau released P23,980.77 to her as retirement gratuity (TW No. B-04,623,521 dated January 2, 1979), presumably a portion of the gratuity to which she was entitled after the Treasurer’s deduction.
Petitioner sought review by the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), asking that the COA Acting Chairman’s orders (2nd and 8th indorsements) be set aside and that the P21,545.08 withheld from her retirement benefits be released. Petitioner asserted she was not an indorser of the warrants, had acted in good faith as a paying teller, and was not negligent; th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner Romana M. Cruz properly held personally liable for the value of the twenty‑eight treasury warrants (P21,545.08) on the ground that she was the last indorser or otherwise negligent in encashing them?
- Could the Bureau of the Treasury, pursuant to Section 624 of the Revised Administrative Code, withhold or deduct the P21,545.08 from pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)