Barroso v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Evelyn S. Mag-abo, Administrative Officer II of Bukidnon State University (BSU), was granted a cash advance of P574,215.27 for employee salaries. While encashing the payroll check at Landbank-Malaybalay, Mag-abo's bag containing the money was stolen by an unidentified man who fled on a motorcycle. The incident was reported to BSU Chief Administrative Officer Wilma L. Gregory, who accompanied Mag-abo to the police. An Audit Observation Memorandum informed petitioner Victor M. Barroso, President of BSU, of the cash shortage. Mag-abo explained the incident and requested relief from her accountability, which was denied. Her subsequent appeals to the COA Commission Proper (COA Proper) were also denied. In a motion for reconsideration, Mag-abo attached an affidavit from a retired BSU Accountant stating that Mag-abo had requested a security escort and vehicle, but none were provided. Procedural History: The COA Proper, in Decision No. 2015-157, denied Mag-abo's motion for reconsideration and held Mag-abo, petitioner Barroso, and Gregory solidarily liable for the stolen amount, citing their negligence in providing security. Petitioner Barroso, who was not a party to the original proceedings and was not furnished a copy of the affidavit, filed his own motion for reconsideration, invoking due process and questioning the basis of his liability. The COA Proper denied his motion in Decision No. 2020-232, ruling that he was not deprived of due process as he was able to file a motion for reconsideration and that he failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in safeguarding BSU funds. The Petition: Petitioner Barroso assailed the COA dispositions, arguing that the COA Proper acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding him solidarily liable without due process and based on insufficient evidence of negligence. He contended that he was never a party to the proceedings until the reconsideration stage and was not furnished a copy of the affidavit forming the basis of his liability. He also argued that the finding of negligence lacked factual basis.
Issue(s)
Whether the COA Proper violated petitioner's right to administrative due process. Whether the COA Proper acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner solidarily liable for the stolen amount.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. Decision Nos. 2015-157 and 2020-232 dated April 6, 2015 and January 29, 2020, respectively, of the Commission on Audit - Commission Proper are NULLIFIED insofar as they hold petitioner Victor M. Barroso solidarily liable with Evelyn S. Mag-abo and Wilma L. Gregory to return the amount of P574,215.27.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of petitioner's right to administrative due process: The Court ruled that petitioner's right to administrative due process was violated. The Court reiterated the requisites of due process in administrative proceedings, including the right to a hearing and the opportunity to present one's case and submit evidence. Petitioner was not afforded these rights as he was only included as a party towards the end of the proceedings before the COA, after Mag-abo's motion for reconsideration was denied. Crucially, he was never furnished a copy of the affidavit of Gloria P. Torres, which allegedly formed the basis of the adverse ruling against him. The Court emphasized that the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration does not cure due process defects, especially when the motion is filed precisely to raise the issue of such violation and the lack of opportunity to be heard on the merits persists. This situation was found to be similar to the case of Fontanilla v. Commissioner Proper, where the Court reversed the COA's ruling for similar due process violations. The COA Proper's denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration, which raised the due process issue, without addressing the core of his grievance, further compounded the violation. The Court held that a decision rendered in disregard of the fundamental right of due process is void for lack of jurisdiction. On whether the COA Proper acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner solidarily liable: The Court found that the COA Proper acted with grave abuse of discretion. The finding of liability against petitioner was based on a violation of his right to due process, as he was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard or to present his defense. The COA Proper's reliance on an affidavit that was never furnished to petitioner, and its failure to address his due process claims in its subsequent ruling, demonstrated a disregard for fundamental procedural fairness. Consequently, the decision holding him solidarily liable was deemed void. The Court noted that while the OSG argued for the dismissal of the petition due to procedural lapses in filing, it resolved to give due course to the petition in the higher interest of substantial justice, considering the amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the potential for excusable lapses.
Main Doctrine
The mere filing of a motion for reconsideration does not cure a violation of the right to administrative due process, especially if the motion was filed precisely to raise the issue of such violation and the lack of opportunity to be heard on the merits remained. A decision rendered in disregard of the fundamental right of due process is void for lack of jurisdiction.