Bintudan v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rosemarie B. Bintudan, a Disbursing Officer II at the Department of Interior and Local Government-Cordillera Administrative Region (DILG-CAR) Provincial Office, reported a robbery on March 16, 2005, where unidentified suspects gained access to the office and stole P114,907.30 from the safety vault. The stolen funds represented salaries and wages for DILG-CAR personnel. An investigation by the local police confirmed the robbery, while the Audit Team Leader (ATL) found that the vault was opened using its posted number combination, indicating negligence in the safeguarding of the funds. The ATL recommended relief for only a portion of the lost funds, citing the early withdrawal of salaries as a contributing factor to the loss. Procedural History: Following the robbery, Bintudan requested relief from accountability for the stolen money. Her request was initially denied by the Legal and Adjudication Office National (LAO-N) of the Commission on Audit (COA) due to negligence. Bintudan moved for reconsideration, arguing she did not post the combination, the early withdrawal was a prior agreement, and security personnel were responsible for protection. The COA Legal Services Sector (LSS) denied her motion, finding her actions, including posting the combination, early withdrawal, and failure to inform security, constituted contributory negligence. Her subsequent appeal to the COA Commission Proper and a motion for reconsideration were also denied. The Petition: Bintudan filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the COA's decision. She argued that the COA erred in finding her guilty of negligence and denying her request for relief from accountability. Bintudan contended that she was not to blame for the loss, that she did not personally post the vault's combination, and that the practice of posting the combination was a measure to ensure continuity of financial transactions in case of the disbursing officer's incapacitation. She maintained that the loss would have occurred regardless of her actions.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner committed negligence in the safekeeping of public funds. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief from accountability for the loss of funds due to robbery. Whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail a decision of the COA.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the decision of the Commission on Audit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the petitioner's negligence and accountability: The Court found that the COA committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's request for relief. The COA relied on the findings of negligence based on the ATL's investigation, which were supported by substantial evidence. Negligence is defined as the omission to do something that a reasonable person would do, or the doing of something a prudent person would not do, and the degree of care required varies with the circumstances. The petitioner was found to be severely negligent by withdrawing funds 13 days before the deadline and leaving the number combination posted on the vault's door. This act, along with the failure to inform security, constituted contributory negligence. Presidential Decree No. 1445, Sections 73, 101, and 105, holds accountable officers liable for losses occasioned by negligence in the keeping of funds. The petitioner's failure to remove the combination from the door, despite knowing the risk, directly enabled the loss of funds, defeating the purpose of the vault. Therefore, she could not be relieved of her accountability. On the petitioner's negligence and accountability: The Court found that the COA committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's request for relief. The COA relied on the findings of negligence based on the ATL's investigation, which were supported by substantial evidence. Negligence is defined as the omission to do something that a reasonable person would do, or the doing of something a prudent person would not do, and the degree of care required varies with the circumstances. The petitioner was found to be severely negligent by withdrawing funds 13 days before the deadline and leaving the number combination posted on the vault's door. This act, along with the failure to inform security, constituted contributory negligence. Presidential Decree No. 1445, Sections 73, 101, and 105, holds accountable officers liable for losses occasioned by negligence in the keeping of funds. The petitioner's failure to remove the combination from the door, despite knowing the risk, directly enabled the loss of funds, defeating the purpose of the vault. Therefore, she could not be relieved of her accountability. On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is improper for assailing decisions of the COA. The proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, as mandated by Section 7, Article IX of the Constitution. Rule 45 is available only for appeals from decisions of lower courts, not quasi-judicial bodies like the COA. The Court noted that Rule 64 is a replication of Rule 65, except for the period for filing.
Main Doctrine
An accountable officer who tolerated the posting of the number combination of the safety vault where the funds of the office in her custody were kept is guilty of negligence and cannot be relieved of her accountability.