Bartolome v. Auditor General
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Bartolome Bartolome, an Acting Cashier in the Cavite City Treasurer's Office since 1927, exchanged a U.S. Treasury Check for P3,522.60, payable to Anastacio Alcantara, with an unknown individual who presented himself as Anastacio Alcantara. The identification provided was merely by a local policeman, Lorenzo Tolentino. The individual was not the payee, had a different address, and the check itself stated it was payable only at the Manila Branch of the National City Bank of New York. The exchange was conducted under suspicious circumstances. Procedural History: Upon learning of the irregularity, the Insular Auditor (now Auditor General) directed the City Auditor to require Patrolman Lorenzo Tolentino to pay the amount. If Tolentino could not pay, the Auditor General authorized the withholding of one-half of the monthly salaries of both the cashier (Bartolome) and Tolentino, considering Bartolome as the paying officer responsible for the unauthorized payment and Tolentino as guarantor. The amount was to be considered a shortage, and criminal and administrative proceedings were recommended against Bartolome. The City Auditor requested compliance, but the City Treasurer informed that Bartolome's salary could not be deducted as he had not withdrawn it since May 16, 1952. Bartolome appealed to the Deputy Auditor General, who required him to pay the full sum. Bartolome refused, stating there was no formal decision requiring him to pay. As he could not collect his full salary, Bartolome filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cavite. The Petition: The Court of First Instance granted the writ of mandamus, directing the respondents (Auditor General, City Auditor, and City Treasurer) to pass in pre-audit and pay the compensations due to Bartolome, finding them without power to deduct or withhold his salary. The respondents appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Auditor General has the authority to order the withholding of the salary of a public officer found personally liable for a shortage in public funds. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in granting the writ of mandamus against the Auditor General and other respondents.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, absolving the appellants (Auditor General, City Auditor, and City Treasurer) and dismissing the petition for mandamus. The costs were taxed against the appellee (Bartolome Bartolome).
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the Auditor General to withhold salary: The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional and statutory authority of the Auditor General to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to government revenues and expenditures. Citing Section 624 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Court held that the Auditor General may direct the proper officer to withhold any money due to a person indebted to the Government, to be applied in satisfaction of such indebtedness. In this case, Bartolome, as the paying officer, was found personally liable for the unauthorized payment of the U.S. Treasury Check due to his negligence in verifying the payee and adhering to the check's payment restrictions and identification requirements stipulated in Section 542 of the Manual of Instructions to Treasurers. The Court emphasized that payments made in violation of these rules would not be accepted in the examination of the treasurer's accounts and would be made a personal charge against him. Therefore, the Auditor General acted within his powers in ordering the withholding of Bartolome's salary. On the propriety of mandamus: The Court found the writ of mandamus to be improper. Bartolome failed to prove that he was not responsible for the shortage or that he had complied with the instructions designed to protect public funds. Instead, he relied on a technicality that there was no formal decision requiring him to pay. However, the Auditor General's endorsement, based on undisputed facts and regulations, declared Bartolome personally liable. The law provides for an appeal from the Auditor General's decision to the President, and if the aggrieved party is a private person or entity, directly to a court of record. Bartolome chose to file a petition for mandamus instead of availing himself of the proper appeal process. Furthermore, the Court cited the principle that in extraordinary remedies like mandamus, there must be a clear right on the part of the petitioner, which Bartolome failed to establish. His presumption of responsibility was not rebutted by evidence. The Court reiterated the doctrine that in the absence of proof of faultlessness, the Auditor General has the right to withhold sums sufficient to cover losses incurred by the government, as exemplified in Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Dexter and Unson.
Main Doctrine
The Auditor General has the constitutional and statutory authority to direct the withholding of salaries of public officers found personally liable for shortages in public funds due to their negligence or violation of regulations, and such decision may be appealed directly to the courts by the aggrieved party.