Cruz v. Gangan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dr. Filonila O. Cruz was required by the Commission on Audit (COA) to pay the book value of a government-issued Nokia 909 analog cellular phone that was stolen from her handbag while she was riding the Light Railway Transit (LRT) on January 15, 1999. The phone was taken by an unidentified person who slashed her handbag. Petitioner immediately reported the incident to the police and TESDA-NCR. Procedural History: Petitioner requested relief from accountability from TESDA-NCR, which was denied by the resident auditor on February 26, 1999, for lack of diligence. This denial was sustained by the Director of the National Government Audit Office II (NGAO II). The matter was elevated to the COA, which also denied the request for relief. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, faulting the COA with grave abuse of discretion for finding her negligent and for applying the case of Nakpil v. CA and disregarding Article 1174 of the New Civil Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission Proper committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in finding that petitioner failed to exercise the degree of diligence required to prevent the loss of the government-issued cellular phone when she opted to take the light railway transit (LRT). Whether the Commission Proper committed grave abuse of discretion when it applied the case of Nakpil v. CA and disregarded Article 1174 of the New Civil Code in denying petitioner’s request for relief from accountability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the assailed Decision of the Commission on Audit. The request of Petitioner Filonila O. Cruz for relief from accountability for the lost Nokia 909 analog cellular phone was granted, and the amount of P4,238 paid under Official Receipt No. 6606743 was ordered to be refunded to her upon finality of the Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Negligence: The Court ruled that riding the LRT cannot per se be denounced as a negligent act, especially under the circumstances where the petitioner's mode of transit was influenced by time and money considerations. The Court emphasized that any prudent person would have done the same to arrive on time for a meeting. The possession of a cellular phone should not hinder one from boarding an LRT coach. The Court reiterated that negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by ordinary considerations, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent man would not do. It is want of care required by the circumstances. The diligence required is that of a good father of a family, and extraordinary measures are not called for. Placing the phone in a bag and holding onto it while traveling on board the LRT is ordinarily sufficient care. Negligence cannot be presumed and must be proven; in the absence of evidence, the COA gravely abused its discretion in finding petitioner negligent. On the Issue of Accountability: The Court found that the COA decision directly attributed the loss to "robbery (bag slashing)" but denied relief due to a finding of negligence, which the Court had already invalidated. The Court held that petitioner observed the proper procedure for notifying the government of the loss by applying for relief from accountability within thirty days. This application was deemed notification. The Court accepted that the robbery or theft had actually taken place, as acknowledged by the resident auditor and the COA. Necessarily, in the absence of evidence showing negligence on her part, credit for the loss of the cellular phone is proper under the law. Therefore, the amount paid by petitioner should be refunded.
Main Doctrine
A government employee who has not been proven to be culpable or negligent should not be held accountable for the loss of a cellular phone stolen from her while she was riding the Light Railway Transit (LRT).