Title
Crisol, Jr. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 235764
Decision Date
Sep 14, 2021
A BOC officer was held liable for a subordinate's unremitted collections; SC ruled no gross negligence, reversing COA's decision after full settlement.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235764)

Background Facts

On September 17, 2010, Atty. Rogel Gatchalian, the District Collector, appointed Arnel Tabije as a Special Collection Officer in the Bureau of Customs. Tabije ceased reporting for work in December 2010, and following an audit conducted by Crisol, it was discovered that Tabije had not deposited Php425,555.52 in collections and failed to turn over an auction fund passbook. Attempts to rectify this with Tabije were unsuccessful, leading to a referral to the Audit Team Leader at the COA.

Proceedings and Findings

An investigation revealed Tabije's absence during the proceedings and concluded with recommendations to charge him with dishonesty and gross neglect of duty. The audit produced a Notice of Charge detailing the unremitted collections, which initially included Atty. Gatchalian and Crisol as liable parties. However, on appeal, both Gatchalian and Crisol were excluded from liability due to the lack of evidence indicating their bad faith or negligence.

COA Review and Liability

The COA later reviewed and reversed the exclusion of Crisol, determining that he failed to supervise Tabije adequately and did not meet the standards of diligence required for his position. This decision directed a referral to the Office of the Ombudsman for potential charges against both Crisol and Tabije. The COA ruled that Crisol, as Chief of the Cash Division, had a supervisory responsibility that mandated monitoring his subordinate’s compliance with financial protocols.

Legal Arguments and Judicial Review

In seeking to overturn the COA's ruling, Crisol argued that the decision exhibited abuse of discretion and that his actions did not amount to gross negligence. The court typically refrains from entertaining appeals against COA decisions unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as clerical errors or significant injustices arising post-decision.

Court Findings on Gross Negligence

The court reiterated that for liability to be established under the Administrative Code, clear evidence of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence must be presented. While recognizing Crisol's negligence, the court held that it did not reach the threshold of gross negligence, w

...continue reading

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