Title
Supreme Court
Barroso vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 253253
Decision Date
Apr 27, 2021
University president challenges COA's solidary liability ruling for stolen payroll funds, citing due process violation; Supreme Court nullifies decision, citing lack of opportunity to defend.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 253253)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner: Victor M. Barroso
Respondent: Commission on Audit (COA) Proper

Key Dates

March 17, 2005: Cash advance of ₱574,215.27 granted to Mag-abo for BSU payroll
March 28, 2005: Robbery of payroll funds en route from Landbank–Malaybalay
April 6, 2015: COA Proper Decision No. 2015-157 holding Barroso, Mag-abo, and Gregory solidarily liable
January 29, 2020: COA Proper Decision No. 2020-232 denying reconsideration
April 27, 2021: Supreme Court en banc decision

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution – Administrative due process guarantees
Presidential Decree No. 1445, Sections 102(1) and 104 – Liability for negligence in custody of public funds
Rule 64, Rules of Court – Petition for certiorari; Rule 13, Rules of Civil Procedure – Filing and service requirements

Antecedents

Mag-abo received a cash advance on March 17, 2005 to cover BSU employees’ March 16–31 salaries. On March 28, she encashed the payroll check at Landbank–Malaybalay and departed with four BSU employees. While returning to campus, an unidentified assailant snatched her bag containing the ₱574,215.27 and fled. The incident was reported to Gregory, who accompanied Mag-abo to the police.

Procedural History Before the COA

April 1, 2005: COA Audit Team Leader issued an Audit Observation Memorandum and demand letter to Mag-abo, directing her to explain the shortage within 72 hours. Mag-abo explained the robbery and sought relief from accountability before the COA Legal Adjudication Office, which was denied (Decision No. LAO-N-2006-132). The Adjudication and Settlement Board affirmed her liability. Mag-abo’s petition for review to the COA Proper was likewise denied (Decision No. 2014-015). Her motion for reconsideration added Torres’s March 2014 affidavit stating Mag-abo had requested security escort and a vehicle, but these were never provided.

COA Proper’s Solidary Liability Ruling

By Decision No. 2015-157 (April 6, 2015), the COA Proper:
• Denied Mag-abo’s reconsideration motion.
• Held Mag-abo liable for the robbery loss.
• Added Barroso and Gregory as solidarily liable for negligence in failing to provide security escort or service vehicle, citing PD 1445, Secs. 102(1) and 104.

Petitioner’s Reconsideration and COA Proper’s Response

Barroso filed a motion for reconsideration of Decision No. 2015-157, asserting:
• He was never impleaded or furnished Torres’s affidavit prior to being held liable.
• He was denied due process and could not meaningfully defend against the allegations.
• There was no factual basis for negligence on his part.
By Decision No. 2020-232 (January 29, 2020), the COA Proper denied his motion, finding that Barroso had the opportunity to seek reconsideration and that his failure to institute security measures constituted negligence.

Petition for Certiorari and Procedural Lapses

Barroso filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COA Proper. The Supreme Court noted Barroso’s petition was filed ten days beyond the sixty-day period and that filing via private courier did not comply with rules for initiatory pleadings. In the interest of substantial justice and given the recent amendments to the Rules of Court, these procedural lapses were deemed excusable.

Issue

Whether the COA Proper violated Barroso’s right to administrative due process by imposing solidary liability without affording him prior notice, opportunity to examine evidence (Torres’s affidavit), or an adequate hearing on his defenses.

Analysis on Administrative Due Process

Citing Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.