Case Summary (G.R. No. 100284)
Petitioner's Position
Mamaril filed a petition for certiorari under Section 7 of Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, asserting that he should not be held liable for the audit disallowances. Mamaril argued he was not an accountable officer as defined by Section 101 of P.D. No. 1445. He maintained that his role was solely clerical, that he did not handle funds directly, and that he did not exhibit bad faith or gross negligence in his work, which included errors in fee evaluations and computations.
Respondent's Comment and Support for Petitioner
The Solicitor General concurred with Mamaril’s position, emphasizing that his duties were mechanical in nature and asserting that there was no malice or gross negligence on his part. The Solicitor General pointed out that the audit findings concerning negligence lacked a proper hearing for Mamaril, further bolstering the argument for the annulment of the COA’s decision.
COA’s Authority and Responsibilities
The primary constitutional authority for state auditing is vested in the COA under the 1987 Constitution, which mandates the body to audit and settle all accounts pertaining to government revenues, expenditures, and funds. The COA has the discretion to implement additional measures, such as special pre-audit, when agencies' internal controls are inadequate, thereby emphasizing the integral role it plays in overseeing fiscal operations.
The Role of Evaluator/Computer in Audit Duties
Mamaril's responsibilities as an Evaluator/Computer were critical to the assessment and collection of registration fees. The internal processes involved multiple layers of review within which Mamaril’s evaluations and corrections significantly impacted the financial records. Over the years, he committed numerous computational errors which led to a substantial undercollection of fees.
Documentation and Notices of Suspension
Throughout his tenure, Mamaril received multiple Certificates of Settlement and Balances and Notices of Suspension that informed him of his repeated mistakes. Despite this, he failed to respond or rectify the recurring issues, leading to the classification of these errors as disallowances after the statutory period for challenging them elapsed.
Civil Liability for Undercollections
The repeated errors in Mamaril’s evaluations raised concerns regarding his good faith in performing his official duties. Importantly, the Court stated that civil liability arises when public officers make mistakes that result in undercollections due to the government, irrespective of their intention or negligence level.
Appeal Rights Under P.D. No. 1445
Petitioner argued that he was not adequately informed about the reasons for the disallowances and did not appeal these decisions to the COA. As specifically outlined in P.D. No. 1445, Mamaril had the right to appeal decisions made by the auditor within six months if he felt aggrieved, reinforcing that his failure to do so limited the Court's ability to review the factual basis for the disallowances.
Impact on Retireme
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 100284)
Case Background
- The case is a petition for certiorari under Section 7 of Article IX of the Constitution and Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, aimed at setting aside Decision No. 1614 of the Commission on Audit (COA).
- Petitioner Narciso E. Mamaril was formerly an Evaluator/Computer at the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in San Pablo City.
- The COA found Mamaril negligent in his duties, leading to an audit disallowance of P44,515.90, for which he was held jointly and severally liable with the agency head.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Mamaril argued he should not be held liable for the audit disallowances for several reasons:
- His work was purely clerical in nature.
- He did not come into possession of any money or property related to the amounts in question.
- He contended he did not act in bad faith or with gross negligence.
- He highlighted that the COA advised the collection of under-collections from responsible parties rather than holding him liable.
Position of the Solicitor General
- The Solicitor General supported Mamaril’s contentions, noting:
- Mamaril's duties were mechanical, and there was no evidence of malice or gross negligence.
- The Auditor’s findings of negligence and inefficiency lacked due process, as Mamaril was not given an opportunity to be heard.
Legal Framework and COA’s Authority
- The Constitution vests th