Alimario v. Commission on Audit

G.R. No. 105883 · 1993-06-25 · J. CRUZ, J.: · Primary: Taxation; Secondary: Administrative Law
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Petitioner Leticia A. Alimario, after 43 years of government service, retired on November 17, 1989. Her retirement papers were delayed due to an alleged incomplete supporting papers in her monthly reports from June 4, 1973, to May 9, 1974, when she was the Acting Accountable Officer. She was informed of an outstanding ledger balance of P6,010.00 for documentary stamps and P165,308.50 for science stamps. Petitioner presented documents, including a transfer order, a memorandum receipt from her successor Francisco P. Evasco, and a clearance from Evasco dated May 13, 1974, stating she had no money or property accountabilities as of that date. Procedural History: Official records of the Commission on Audit (COA) in San Pablo City for 1970-1980, including Alimario's reports, were destroyed by fire. The Accountable Forms Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) had no records of stamp issuances prior to January 1, 1974. BIR Deputy Commissioner Victor A. Deoferio, Jr. recommended the condonation or write-off of Alimario's alleged outstanding balances. State Auditors recommended writing off the science stamps balance (P137,601.00) but deducting the documentary stamps balance (P28,010.00) from her terminal leave pay. The COA, in Decision No. 1815, approved these recommendations, allowing the write-off of science stamps and deduction of documentary stamps from terminal leave pay. The COA denied Alimario's motion for reconsideration in Decision No. 2332. The Petition: Petitioner sought the reversal of the COA decisions, arguing they were not supported by substantial evidence and that the COA relied solely on the auditors' recommendations. She also sought the refund of the P28,010.00 deducted from her terminal leave pay.

Issue(s)

Whether the Commission on Audit erred in deducting the amount of P28,010.00 from the petitioner's terminal leave pay; and whether the COA decisions were supported by substantial evidence.

Ruling

The petition is GRANTED. The challenged decisions of the Commission on Audit are SET ASIDE. The respondent is DIRECTED to immediately return to petitioner the amount of P28,010.00 unlawfully deducted from her terminal leave pay.

Ratio Decidendi

On the issue of whether the COA erred in deducting the amount of P28,010.00 from the petitioner's terminal leave pay and whether the COA decisions were supported by substantial evidence: The Court held that the COA decisions were reached without any supporting evidence, violating the cardinal rule that any decision or ruling promulgated by an administrative body must have something to support itself. The evidence required before such tribunals is substantial evidence, which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In this case, there was not only a lack of substantial evidence but a total absence of any evidence that could support the assailed decisions of the COA. The COA's classification of the P28,010.00 as a "shortage" had no foundation, as no record existed to prove Alimario's responsibility for the unaccounted balances. The Court noted that the government took 17 years to confront the petitioner with the alleged shortage, and considering the time elapsed, it was understandable why she could not make a convincing refutation. The Court found it unfair to hold the petitioner liable for the government's own inability to prove its claim due to its faulty records management. The Court highlighted four points in favor of the petitioner: the clearance from her successor in 1974, the destruction of official records by fire, the BIR's lack of records prior to January 1, 1974, and the BIR Deputy Commissioner's recommendation for condonation or write-off of the balances. Therefore, the deduction was unlawful.

Main Doctrine

A decision or ruling by an administrative body must be supported by substantial evidence; otherwise, it is void. The government's failure to prove its claim against an accountable officer due to its own faulty records management cannot be used to hold the officer liable.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →