Title
Herdez vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 71871
Decision Date
Nov 6, 1989
A government officer, robbed while transporting employee wages, was relieved of accountability as the Supreme Court ruled the loss was a fortuitous event, not negligence.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 71871)

Key Dates (incident and administrative timeline)

July 1, 1983: petitioner encashed two PTA checks in Manila and was robbed en route to Marilao. July 5, 1983: petitioner filed an application for relief from money accountability under Section 638. July 27, 1983: PTA Corporate Auditor indorsed relief. January 17, 1984: COA NCR Regional Director recommended relief and absolved petitioner of negligence. June 29, 1984: COA (Chairman) denied the petition for relief.

Facts of the incident

On July 1, 1983 Hernandez went to the PTA main office in Manila to encash two checks covering employee wages and operating expenses for the Ternate Beach Project. Processing was delayed and cash was available only around 3:00 p.m. Rather than defer encashment to the next working day, Hernandez encashed the checks to enable employees to be paid sooner. He chose to travel to his home in Marilao, Bulacan that afternoon—being closer and, in his judgment, safer—planning to proceed to Ternate the next morning. While on a jeepney along EDSA two assailants boarded, one pointed a knife and the other cut Hernandez’s pocket and took the cash (P10,175.00). Hernandez immediately pursued; he caught and subdued Alvarez after a scuffle, sustaining injuries. Alvarez pleaded guilty; the other robber escaped and the money was not recovered.

Administrative proceedings and COA action

Hernandez filed for relief under Section 638 on July 5, 1983. The PTA General Manager and Corporate Auditor endorsed relief. The COA Regional Director (NCR) recommended relief on January 17, 1984 and absolved Hernandez of negligence. Notwithstanding these endorsements, the COA (through its Chairman) denied relief on June 29, 1984, concluding that the loss was attributable to Hernandez’s negligence.

COA’s reasoning for denial

COA found that Hernandez was negligent because he should have returned immediately to Ternate after encashment and deposited the funds in his office for safekeeping—the normal procedure for handling public funds. COA criticized the decision to encash late in the day and to transmit the money to Marilao rather than to Ternate, holding that he should have deferred encashment to the next working day (July 5). COA also noted that one check (P6,964.00) represented operating expenses rather than wages, undermining the asserted urgency. COA emphasized that the burden of proof in petitions for relief rests with the petitioner, and concluded Hernandez failed to prove the loss was not due to his negligence.

Petitioner’s position and factual defenses

Hernandez maintained he acted reasonably and with good motive: he encashed the checks on a Friday afternoon to avoid delaying payment to employees (weekend days and a holiday would otherwise postpone payment until Tuesday). He chose Marilao because it was nearer and, in his assessment, safer given the late hour and the three-hour trip plus a 30-minute tricycle ride required to reach Ternate. He argued the robbery was a fortuitous, unforeseeable event occurring in broad daylight on a busy highway and that his active pursuit and capture of one robber demonstrated vigilance and a lack of indifference toward the funds.

Positions of the Solicitor General

Solicitor General Sedfrey A. Ordoñez filed a Comment supporting COA’s denial, asserting Hernandez’s negligence. Subsequently, Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez submitted a Manifestation in Lieu of Memorandum siding with Hernandez, agreeing that Hernandez was not negligent or, alternatively, that any contributory negligence was offset by his prompt, risky efforts to recover the money and the capture of one assailant.

Legal standard under Section 638 and P.D. No. 1445

Section 638 requires an accountable officer who suffers loss of government funds in transit or by theft to immediately notify the Auditor General (or provincial auditor) and to submit an application for relief with available evidence within thirty days (or a longer period allowed). Failure to comply bars relief. P.D. No. 1445 (Section 73) reiterates the provision. The statutory framework places the burden on the petitioner to establish that the loss did not result from his negligence and otherwise me

...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.