A.M. No. 265-MJ - Babatio vs. Tan

Case Summary (A.M. No. 265-MJ)

Key Places and Incident Details

Withdrawal occurred at Land Bank of the Philippines, J.P. Rizal St., Barangay Concepcion, Marikina City. On return, vehicle was attacked along J.P. Rizal St. near the old barangay hall; driver shot and incapacitated, cashier shot and killed, payroll bag forcibly taken.

Procedural History (Administrative)

On March 15, 2010, Estelita notified the Audit Team Leader and requested relief from accountability. Municipal mayor, Audit Team Leader, and Supervising Auditor recommended granting relief. On May 30, 2012, the COA Adjudication and Settlement Board denied relief and held Estelita and the estate of Lily jointly and severally liable for P1,300,000.00, reasoning that absence of a security escort given the amount involved constituted negligence. Petition for review to COA was denied on April 13, 2015; motion for reconsideration was denied on June 6, 2016 as belated and without merit. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

Key Dates (material to timeliness and administration)

Incident: March 12, 2010. Request for relief: March 15, 2010. ASB decision denying relief: May 30, 2012. COA denial of petition for review: April 13, 2015. COA denial of motion for reconsideration (denied as late and without merit): June 6, 2016; petitioner manifested receipt of that resolution on August 18, 2016 and filed the Supreme Court petition on September 19, 2016.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (case decided after 1990). Statutory and regulatory law invoked: Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (PD No. 1445), specifically Section 105 (measure of liability of accountable officers) and Section 73 (relief in case of loss by theft, fire, casualty or force majeure), and rules implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (cited Rule VI, Section 8, par. 3). Procedural rules: Rule 64 of the Rules of Court (certiorari to review COA decisions), Section 3 (time to file petition).

Issue Presented

Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s request for relief from money accountability for the P1.3 million lost through robbery while in transit, particularly insofar as the COA relied on the absence of a security escort to find negligence.

Timeliness Issue and Court’s Discretion on Procedural Lapses

Rule 64, Section 3 requires a petition for certiorari to be filed within 30 days from notice of the COA judgment; filing of a motion for reconsideration interrupts the period but does not reset a full 30‑day period upon denial. Petitioner failed to supply all material dates (date of notice of COA decision and date of filing of the motion for reconsideration), which on its face suggested the petition might be filed beyond the reglementary period. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court exercised discretion to relax strict procedural dismissal and entertain the petition on the merits in the interest of substantial justice, citing precedents where procedural defects were excused to avoid grave injustice (e.g., The Law Firm of Laguesma Magsalin Consulta and Gastardo v. COA; Sto. Nino Construction v. COA). The Court found circumstances sufficiently compelling to apply the rule liberally.

Standard of Liability for Accountable Officers

Under PD No. 1445, Section 105, an accountable officer is liable for losses resulting from negligence in the keeping of funds; conversely, relief from accountability may be granted when loss occurs in transit due to theft or other casualty or where there is no negligence. The governing standard is the diligence of a “good father of a family” — officers must exercise ordinary care and vigilance required by the circumstances, not an unrealistic or omniscient foresight.

Analysis of Facts Against the Legal Standard

Conduct of municipal personnel: The cashier and revenue collection officer used a municipal service vehicle driven by the municipal driver, followed established practice and procedures (travel pass), transacted during regular office hours, and returned to the office.
Nature of the loss: The robbery was violent, occurred unexpectedly in broad daylight on a public street, resulted in the death of the cashier and injury to the driver; perpetrators were later positively identified and indicted for Robbery with Homicide.
COA’s reasoning: COA required a higher degree of precaution given the amount involved and faulted the lack of a security escort as evidence of negligence. COA did not substantiate why an escort was a necessary precaution under those specific circumstances.
Comparative authorities and principle against hindsight: The Court relied on prior decisions (Hernandez v. COA; Callang v. COA) applying the “hindsight is a cruel judge” principle, and analogized to common‑carrier jurisprudence (De Guzman v. Court of Appeals) rejecting an expectation that a carrier or custodian employ extreme measures (e.g., security guards) that go beyond reasonable prudence and would unreasonably risk lives.

Court’s Reasoning on Negligence and COA’s Error

The Court concluded that petitioner and the deceased cashier exercised the degree of care required of ordinary prudent persons under the circumstances: use of service vehicle, adherence to prevailing municipal practice and procedures, routine timing of transaction, and the violent unexpected nature of the robbery. The absence of an armed escort, standing alone, did not establish negligence. COA’s imposition of an elevated standard (requiring escort because of the amount) without fact‑specific justification constituted grave abuse of discretion. The COA’s approach ef

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 265-MJ)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 891 Phil. 44; 119 OG No. 9, 1467 (February 27, 2023), En Banc, G.R. No. 228795 (Formerly UDK 15699), December 01, 2020.
Decision authored by Justice Lopez.
Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Commission on Audit (COA) Decision dated April 13, 2015.
Adjudication and Settlement Board (ASB) Decision dated May 30, 2012 initially found petitioner and the estate of the deceased cashier jointly and severally liable for P1,300,000.00.
COA denied reconsideration (motion denied June 6, 2016 for being filed out of time and for lack of merit).
Petitioner manifested receipt of COA Resolution denying reconsideration on August 18, 2016 and filed the Supreme Court petition for certiorari on September 19, 2016.
Supreme Court considered timeliness of the petition under Section 3, Rule 64 but, in the interest of substantial justice, proceeded to resolve the merits and issued final relief.

Facts / Antecedents

On March 12, 2010 at approximately 2:30 p.m., cashier Lily De Jesus and revenue collection officer Estrellita Ramos (both of the Office of the Treasurer, Municipality of San Mateo, Rizal), together with municipal driver Felix Alcantara, went to the Land Bank of the Philippines branch on J.P. Rizal St., Barangay Concepcion, Marikina City to withdraw P1,300,000.00 in payroll money.
After the withdrawal, the group returned to their vehicle and drove back toward their office; at around 4:30 p.m., at the traffic light along J.P. Rizal St. in front of the old barangay hall, a man crossed the street and fired upon the driver’s side of the vehicle.
The bullet struck driver Felix’s left arm and pierced his left chest; Felix became numb and passed out.
A second assailant broke the passenger-side window, forcibly took from cashier Lily a black bag containing the payroll money, and shot Lily, causing her death.
Police investigation resulted in the arrest and indictment of suspects Jay-ar Magpuri and Virgilio Redito for Robbery with Homicide.
On March 15, 2010, the officer-in-charge municipal treasurer Estelita Angeles informed the Audit Team Leader of the incident and requested relief from accountability for the lost payroll money.
Estelita explained that she assumed office on October 27, 2008, and that the practice of her predecessors was that the paymaster or cashier transacted with the depositary bank without police escort.
The existing standard operating procedure required a travel pass from the Human Resource Development Officer indicating the personnel’s name, date, time, and purpose of travel.
The municipal mayor, the Audit Team Leader, and the Supervising Auditor recommended granting relief from accountability, citing positive identification of the culprits and absence of Estelita’s fault or participation.
Despite these recommendations, the ASB on May 30, 2012 denied the request and found Estelita and the estate of Lily jointly and severally liable for P1,300,000.00, reasoning that a security escort was necessary given the amount involved and that its absence gave the perpetrators opportunity to commit robbery.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner Estelita Angeles contended she exercised due diligence despite the absence of specific regulations on safeguarding payroll money while in transit.
She argued that a security escort would have attracted more attention and increased the risk to personnel and funds.
She asserted that a security escort could not have prevented the violent nature of the robbery which resulted in injury to the driver and the murder of the cashier.
Petitioner invoked the favorable recommendations from the municipal mayor, the Audit Team Leader, and the Supervising Auditor in support of relief from accountability.

Respondent’s Position (COA / OSG)

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained that Estelita was negligent in allowing bank transactions without any security escort.
OSG and COA emphasized that the absence of a security escort, particularly given the large amount withdrawn, evidenced a lack of necessary precaution and diligence.
COA’s April 13, 2015 Decision held that a higher degree of precaution was required because of the amount involved and that securing only a travel pass without an escort did not meet the required diligence in handling government funds.

Procedural History and Timeliness Issues

Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court prescribes that a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court must be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the COA judgment or final order; filing a motion for reconsideration interrupts the period, and on denial the remaining period applies.
The petition must show the dates of notice of the assailed judgment, the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and receipt of not