Bulilan v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hermogina U. Bulilan, Cashier of Visayan State College of Agriculture (VISCA), withdrew P566,468.91 for employee salaries. Due to the bulk of pay envelopes, she placed them in a steel cabinet without a lock, instead of the available concrete vault/room with a steel door secured by a padlock. On the night of March 11, 1990, a robbery occurred, resulting in the loss of the funds. The Chief Security Officer's report indicated the culprit was familiar with the building and gained entry through the fire exit and other offices. Procedural History: Petitioner sought relief from accountability from the Commission on Audit (COA) under Section 73 of P.D. 1445. The COA denied her plea, finding definite proof of negligence. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the COA's decision and arguing that she should not be held liable for a fortuitous event.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to question the COA's findings of fact. Whether the Commission on Audit erred in not absolving petitioner of liability and in holding her guilty of negligence for the loss of government funds.
Ruling
The petition is denied for being an improper remedy and for lack of merit. The COA Decision No. 95-384 is affirmed in its entirety.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not the appropriate remedy for questioning findings of fact, such as the presence or absence of negligence. Such matters can only be raised through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, as prescribed by Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that appellate courts generally do not weigh evidence anew when reviewing decisions of administrative bodies. On the alleged error of the COA in finding negligence: The Court ruled against the petitioner, affirming the COA's finding of negligence. The Court defined negligence as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by ordinary considerations, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man could not do. It is a want of care required by the circumstances. The Court found that the petitioner failed to exercise the required diligence by placing the pay envelopes in an unlocked steel cabinet instead of the more secure concrete vault/room. Furthermore, the storage cabinet was not readily visible to the guard on duty. The Court also noted her failure to make a deposit in March 1990, contrary to Joint COA-MOF Circular No. 1-81, and her failure to turn over funds to the Disbursing Officer, which exposed the funds to danger. These actions demonstrated a lack of the care demanded by the circumstances, thus constituting negligence.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Audit did not err in finding the petitioner negligent and holding her liable for the loss of government funds, as her actions in safeguarding the funds did not meet the standard of care required by the circumstances, and her petition for relief from accountability was properly denied.