A.C. No. 13435 - Martin vs. Atty. Ala

Teodoro M. Hernandez was Officer-in-Charge and Special Disbursing Officer of the Ternate Beach Project, Philippine Tourism Authority.
On July 1, 1983, he went to the Authority’s Manila office to encash two checks totaling ₱10,175.00—one for employee wages and one for operating expenses—planning to return to Ternate by mid-afternoon.
Check processing was delayed until 3:00 PM, but he encashed anyway to ensure employees could collect pay the next working day.

Faced with two options—return immediately to Ternate (three-hour trip including a night-time tricycle ride) or go to his nearer, safer home in Marilao, Bulacan—he chose the latter.
While aboard a passenger jeep on EDSA shortly after 3:00 PM, two armed men boarded; one held him at knifepoint, the other forcibly took the money and fled.
Hernandez pursued and apprehended one assailant (Virgilio Alvarez), sustaining injuries; Alvarez was later convicted for robbery, but the other robber and the money remained at large.

On July 5, 1983, Hernandez filed a petition for relief from money accountability under Section 638, Revised Administrative Code, within the allowed period.
The petition was endorsed favorably by the Philippine Tourism Authority’s General Manager (July 5) and Corporate Auditor (July 27), and by the COA Regional Director (January 17, 1984), all absolving him of negligence.
On June 29, 1984, the Commission on Audit (Chairman Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr.) denied relief, attributing the loss to Hernandez’s negligence in deviating from the normal procedure of immediately securing funds in his Ternate office.

Hernandez petitioned the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COA; he argued his actions were reasonable and the robbery unforeseeable.
Solicitor General Sedfrey A. Ordoñez initially defended the COA’s denial; his successor, Francisco I. Chavez, later filed a manifestation supporting Hernandez’s request for relief.
The COA submitted a memorandum reiterating its view that Hernandez’s decision to encash late on July 1 and divert to Marilao demonstrated imprudence and contributory negligence.

Whether Hernandez’s decision to encash checks late on a Friday and to transport funds to Marilao instead of Ternate constituted negligence.
Whether the robbery was a foreseeable risk that he could have prevented by delaying encashment or taking other precautions.

Entitlement to Relief under Section 638, Revised Administrative Code (and Section 73, P.D. 1445)

Whether the loss qualifies as a “fortuitous event” and thus warrants relief from accountability.
Whether Hernandez met the burden of proof to show absence of negligence and that he complied with procedural requirements.