Case Summary (G.R. No. 143403)
Facts of the Case
On January 15, 1999, Cruz visited the Regional Office of the Technological Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) in Taguig, Metro Manila, for a consultation. After her meeting, she took the Light Railway Transit (LRT) back to her official station in Caloocan City. During the journey, her handbag was slashed, resulting in the theft of several items, including her government-issued cellular phone. She promptly reported the incident to the police, who could not recover the phone. Following this, Cruz submitted a memorandum requesting relief from accountability for the lost property, which was denied on the grounds that she lacked the diligence necessary to safeguard government property.
Ruling of the Commission on Audit
The COA upheld the finding of negligence, stating that Cruz should have anticipated the risks associated with riding an overcrowded LRT, thereby failing to exercise the necessary diligence in safeguarding the cellular phone. The COA's decision cited prior legal precedents and statutory obligations under the law, concluding that Cruz's negligence warranted her liability for the loss.
Issues Presented
Cruz's memorandum identified two main issues: (1) whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in finding her negligent for choosing to ride the LRT, and (2) whether the COA's reliance on the case of Nakpil v. CA and disregard of Article 1174 of the New Civil Code was appropriate in denying her request for relief. The primary legal questions thus centered on the presence of negligence and the appropriateness of holding Cruz accountable for the loss.
Court's Ruling
The Court found that the petition was meritorious. It stated that riding the LRT could not inherently be considered negligent behavior, especially since Cruz's decision was made out of necessity due to time and economic constraints. The Court drew upon the legal definition of negligence, indicating that a reasonable person would have acted similarly under comparable circumstances. It emphasized that Cruz's actions did not exhibit a lack of ordinary care, thus disputing the COA's findings of negligence.
Accountability Determination
Given that the Court found no factual or legal basis for establishing Cruz's negligence, the next point of consideration was whether she properly no
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 143403)
Case Overview
- The case revolves around a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 64, filed by Dr. Filonila O. Cruz against the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding the loss of a government-issued cellular phone, which was stolen while she was commuting.
- The COA had previously ruled that Dr. Cruz was liable for the loss due to alleged negligence in safeguarding the property.
Facts of the Case
- On January 15, 1999, Dr. Cruz visited the Regional Office of the Technological Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) for a consultation.
- After the meeting, she took the Light Railway Transit (LRT) back to her official station in Caloocan City.
- During the LRT ride, an unidentified assailant slashed her handbag and stole its contents, including her government-issued Nokia 909 cellular phone.
- Dr. Cruz reported the theft to police authorities on the same day, but the investigation yielded no results.
- Three days later, she informed the regional director of TESDA-NCR about the loss and requested relief from accountability.
- The resident auditor denied her request, citing a lack of diligence in safeguarding government property and ordered her to pay the book value of the lost phone and its case, totaling P4,238.
Ruling of the Commission on Audit
- The COA upheld the resident auditor's decision, asserting that Dr. Cruz fai