Title
Bintudan vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 211937
Decision Date
Mar 21, 2017
A disbursing officer sought relief for stolen public funds after a robbery. The Supreme Court denied her petition, ruling her negligent for posting the vault combination and failing to secure funds, affirming COA's decision.
accountability
negligence
loss of government funds

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211937)

Factual Background

On the night of March 16, 2005, unidentified suspects gained access to the DILG-CAR Provincial Office and robbed the office after forcibly destroying its windows and steel grills. They carted away the contents of the vault in the amount of P114,907.30. The petitioner reported the incident by letter dated March 17, 2005 to the provincial office in Lagawe, Ifugao, and also to the Audit Team Leader (ATL) of DILG-CAR. On April 6, 2005, she requested the ATL to be relieved from liability over the stolen money.

The Lagawe Police Station, in a report dated May 5, 2005, confirmed the robbery and declared that efforts to identify the suspects and recover the stolen funds had proved futile. Separately, the ATL prepared an investigation and inspection report that determined the robbery occurred under circumstances that implicated the manner by which the safety vault was secured. The ATL found that: the outer door or brown filing steel cabinet was forcibly opened, yet the perpetrators opened the vault with ease by using the number combination that had been posted on the vault door; the money inside the vault at the time of the robbery totaled P114,907.30, representing salaries and wages of the DILG Ifugao Provincial Personnel; there was early withdrawal of the salaries and wages for March 16 to 31, 2005 in the amount of P82,777.49, despite the close proximity between the bank and the DILG office; and, for these reasons, the ATL recommended that only P32,129.81 be granted while P82,777.49 be denied.

COA Proceedings and Petitioner’s Attempts at Relief

In LAO-N Decision No. 2007-117, dated October 25, 2007, the Legal and Adjudication Office National (LAO-N) of the COA denied the petitioner’s request for relief from accountability on the ground of negligence.

The petitioner moved for reconsideration on December 14, 2007, asserting that (a) she was not the person who posted the number combination of the vault on its door; (b) the early withdrawal of salaries and wages was not her idea because she merely implemented an arrangement previously agreed upon by officers and personnel; and (c) it was the duty of the security personnel to protect the premises regardless of whether cash was present.

The COA Legal Services Sector (LSS), in Decision No. 2009-170 dated March 31, 2009, denied reconsideration. It held that the petitioner’s acts—posting the number combination on the vault’s door, the early withdrawal of funds for the employees’ salaries, and failure to inform the security office of the substantial amount of cash kept in the vault—amounted to contributory negligence.

The petitioner’s further appeal to the COA, Commission Proper, was denied. COA, Commission Proper, issued Decision No. 2012-174 dated October 29, 2012, which affirmed the COA LSS decision. The COA, Commission Proper, likewise denied her motion for reconsideration, prompting the present petition.

The Parties’ Contentions on Review

The petitioner invoked a single issue: whether the respondent erred in finding her guilty of negligence and denying her request for relief from accountability. She argued that she was not responsible for the loss of funds during the robbery. She insisted that she had not personally posted the vault’s number combination and that the practice of posting the combination predated her involvement. According to her, the practice began after the death of Disbursing Officer Juan G. Tayaban in 1997, when she was then requested to open the vault in the presence of other personnel. She further maintained that the posting of the number combination benefited the office because it allowed regular financial transactions to proceed without interruption in cases of sudden death or similar circumstances affecting the disbursing officer’s memory or presence.

The COA, on the other hand, relied on the finding of negligence supported by the ATL’s report and the conclusions reached by the COA offices below, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to exercise the degree of care required of an accountable officer in safeguarding public funds.

Procedural Issue: Improper Remedy

Before reaching the merits, the Court addressed the procedural posture. The petitioner filed the action as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to assail a COA decision rendered in a COA en banc proceeding. The Court held that this remedy was improper.

The Court explained that review by Rule 45 is available only as an appeal from a decision or final order of a lower court, consistent with Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the Constitution, which authorizes the Supreme Court to review on appeal or certiorari final judgments and orders of lower courts. Implementing this limitation, the Court cited Section 1 of Rule 45, which permits a petition for review on certiorari from judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts authorized by law.

The Court contrasted this with the special rule for COA decisions governed by Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, under which COA decisions, final orders, or rulings may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari within 30 days from receipt. The Court noted that in the 1997 Rules of Court revision, Rule 64 was adopted to implement this particular review path by covering judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit, and that Rule 64 replicated provisions on Rule 65 certiorari, except as to the period to file the petition.

Nonetheless, the Court also examined the intrinsic merits despite the procedural defect.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the constitutional nature of COA’s mandate, emphasizing that the COA is the guardian of public funds with broad powers over government accounts and the exclusive authority to define the scope of audit and examination, establish techniques and methods, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations. The Court held that judicial interference through certiorari would lie only when COA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The petitioner’s challenge, however, rested on an alleged misappreciation of facts. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on COA’s part. It held that the COA correctly applied applicable law and rules and that COA’s negligence finding was supported by substantial evidence, relying on the ATL’s investigation and inspection report.

In defining negligence, the Court adopted the established concept of negligence as the omission to do what a reasonable person would do under similar considerations, or the doing of what a prudent and reasonable person could not do. The Court stressed that negligence is relative and depends on the situation, including the degree of care and vigilance demanded by the nature of the act and its importance.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the petitioner was severely negligent in discharging the duties of a disbursing officer. The ATL’s findings showed that she withdrew salaries from a nearby bank thirteen days from the deadline for submission of reports and placed the withdrawn funds inside the safety vault despite the vault’s number combination having been left posted on its door. The ATL also found that she failed to inform the security guard on duty that a considerable amount of cash was kept inside the vault to ensure its safety.

The Court then connected these factual findings to the relevant provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1445. It cited Section 73 on credit for loss caused by fire, theft, or other casualty or force majeure, requiring the accountable officer to immediately notify COA and, within thirty days or such longer period allowed, file an application for relief with supporting evidence; the Court underscored that failure to comply precludes relief or credit. It also cited Section 101 on accountable officers and the bond and safekeeping obligations for officers whose duties permit or require custody of government funds or property, and Section 105 on the measure of liability, holding that accountable officers are liable for losses and deterioration occasioned by negligence in keeping or using the property and that accountable officers for government funds are liable for losses attributable to negligence in the keeping of the funds, whether or not the loss occurred while the funds were in actual custody at the moment of loss.

The Court held that the COA’s denial of relief was inescapable. Because the petitioner had custody of public f

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms