Bintudan vs. Commission on Audit

An accountable officer who tolerates the posting of the number combination of a safety vault on the vault's door, thereby enabling loss of the public funds inside, is guilty of negligence and cannot be relieved of accountability for the loss. Even if the officer did not personally post the combination, failure to remove it — and the consequent defeat of the vault's security purpose — constitutes want of care required by the circumstances.

Rosemarie B. Bintudan was the Disbursing Officer II of the Department of Interior and Local Government-Cordillera Administrative Region (DILG-CAR) Provincial Office in Lagawe, Ifugao. On the night of March 16, 2005, unknown suspects forcibly destroyed the windows and steel grills of the office, gained entry, and robbed the contents of the safety vault. The vault contained ₱114,907.30 in public funds representing salaries and wages of DILG-Ifugao provincial personnel. The robbers opened the vault with ease — the number combination was posted on the vault's door.

• The Robbery: On the night of March 16, 2005, unidentified suspects forcibly destroyed windows and steel grills to gain entry into the DILG-CAR Provincial Office in Lagawe, Ifugao. They opened the safety vault and carted away its contents — ₱114,907.30 in cash. The Lagawe Police Station confirmed the robbery in a report dated May 5, 2005, and declared that efforts to identify suspects and recover the funds had remained futile.

• The Audit Findings: The ATL's investigation and inspection report established the following:

  • The outer brown filing steel cabinet was forcibly opened, but the safe/vault was opened with ease — the perpetrators used the number combination posted on the vault's door.
  • The stolen amount comprised: ₱82,777.49 (salaries/wages for March 16–31, 2005); ₱27,527.13 (salaries/wages for March 1–15, 2005); and ₱4,602.68 (salaries/wages held for February 28, 2005).
  • The withdrawal of ₱82,777.49 for the March 16–31 payroll was made on March 11, 2005 — thirteen days early — despite the depository bank being only a few meters from the DILG office.

  • Petitioner failed to inform the security guard on duty that a large amount of cash was kept in the vault.

  • Petitioner's Defenses: Petitioner maintained that she did not personally post the number combination; the practice began after the death of the previous disbursing officer in 1997, when she was asked to open the vault in the presence of other personnel. She argued the posting benefitted the office by ensuring uninterrupted financial transactions in case of the disbursing officer's sudden death, amnesia, or memory lapse. She also contended the early withdrawal was not her idea but implemented a prior agreement among office personnel.

• Absence of Personal Negligence: Petitioner argued she was not the one who posted the number combination on the vault's door and therefore should not be held negligent for the loss.

• Justification for the Practice: Petitioner maintained that posting the number combination was an established practice that benefitted the office by allowing regular financial transactions to continue without interruption in case of the disbursing officer's sudden death, amnesia, or memory lapse.

• Implementation of Prior Agreement: Petitioner contended the early withdrawal of salaries was not her own idea; she merely implemented what the officers and personnel of the DILG-Ifugao Provincial Office had previously agreed upon.

• Responsibility of Security Personnel: Petitioner argued it was the duty of security personnel to protect the premises regardless of whether cash was present inside.

• Contributory Negligence Established: The COA LSS found that petitioner's acts of posting the number combination, making the early withdrawal of funds, and failing to inform the security office of the large amount kept in the vault constituted contributory negligence.

• Primary Accountability for Safekeeping: The COA Commission Proper, invoking the Government Auditing Code (P.D. No. 1445), maintained that as disbursing officer, petitioner was fully accountable for the safekeeping of funds in her custody and could not shift responsibility to security personnel.

• Negligence Defeats Exoneration: Even if the loss was caused by theft or force majeure, petitioner could not be relieved because her own negligence — tolerating the posted combination — directly enabled the loss.

• Proper Remedy: Whether the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was the proper remedy to assail the COA's decision.

• Negligence of the Accountable Officer: Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner negligent and denying relief from accountability for the loss of ₱114,907.30.

• Proper Remedy: The petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 was improper. Under Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution and Section 1 of Rule 45, such a petition is available only to review final judgments and orders of lower courts. The COA is a constitutional commission, not a lower court. The correct remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, which governs review of judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the Commission on Audit and the Commission on Elections. Rule 64 essentially replicates the provisions of Rule 65 on the special civil action for certiorari, except for the period to bring the petition (30 days from receipt under Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution). The technical deficiency in remedy, however, did not preclude consideration of the petition's intrinsic merits.

• Negligence of the Accountable Officer: The COA committed no grave abuse of discretion. Its findings of negligence were supported by substantial evidence from the ATL's investigation. Negligence is defined as the omission to do something a reasonable person would do under the circumstances, or doing something a prudent person would not do — it is want of the care required by the circumstances. The degree of diligence required varies with the nature of the situation and the importance of the act to be performed. Under Sections 101 and 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, every officer with custody of government funds is accountable for their safekeeping and is liable for all losses attributable to negligence in keeping the funds. Although exoneration is possible for losses caused by theft or force majeure, the accountable officer must establish the loss was not due to her negligence. Petitioner failed to do so on three grounds:

  • She withdrew salary funds thirteen days before the reporting deadline and stored them in the vault despite the bank's proximity — an imprudent act that increased the risk of loss.
  • Even if she did not personally post the number combination on the vault's door, she tolerated the posting by failing to remove it. Simple prudence demanded its removal; leaving it public defeated the very purpose of having a vault.
  • She failed to inform the security guard that a significant sum was kept in the vault.
  • The robbers opened the vault without employing force precisely because the combination was posted — a direct causal link between her omission and the loss. Her contention that the robbery would have occurred anyway was unworthy of consideration given this obtrusive fact.

• Definition of Negligence — Negligence is the omission to do something that a reasonable person, guided by considerations ordinarily regulating human conduct, would do; or the doing of something a prudent and reasonable person would not do. It is want of the care required by the circumstances. Negligence is a relative or comparative concept; its application depends on the situation of the parties and the degree of care and vigilance the prevailing circumstances reasonably require. The diligence required of an individual varies according to the nature of the situation and the importance of the act to be performed.

• Accountability for Public Funds — Under Sections 101 and 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code), every officer whose duties permit or require possession or custody of government funds is accountable for their safekeeping and is liable for all losses attributable to negligence in keeping the funds. While an accountable officer may be exonerated for losses caused by theft or force majeure, exoneration requires proof that the loss was not occasioned by the officer's negligence.

• Scope of Judicial Review of COA Decisions — Under Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COA may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt. Rule 64 of the Rules of Court implements this provision. The Supreme Court may entertain and grant a petition for certiorari against COA actions only when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Findings of fact by the COA supported by substantial evidence are entitled to respect.

• Proper Remedy from Quasi-Judicial Agencies — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is available only against final judgments and orders of lower courts, consistent with Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution. The review of decisions, awards, and final orders or resolutions of quasi-judicial offices or bodies is through a petition for review under Rule 43. Decisions of constitutional commissions (COA and COMELEC) are reviewed via Rule 64, which replicates the provisions of Rule 65 on the special civil action for certiorari, except for the filing period.

• "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." — The opening syllabi passage embodying the ratio decidendi.

• "Her leaving the number combination public in that manner defeated the purpose of having the vault to begin with. She thus was guilty of negligence." — The core reasoning on why tolerating the posted combination, even without personal action, constitutes negligence.

• "Negligence is the omission to do something that a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent man and reasonable man could not do. Stated otherwise, negligence is want of care required by the circumstances." — The controlling definition of negligence applied to public officers.

• "Negligence is, therefore, a relative or comparative concept. Its application depends upon the situation the parties are in, and the degree of care and vigilance which the prevailing circumstances reasonably require." — The principle that the required standard of diligence scales with the importance of the duty and the risk.

• Nazareth v. Villar, G.R. No. 188635, January 29, 2013, 689 SCRA 385, 407 — Cited for the principle that the Constitution has made the COA the guardian of public funds, vesting it with broad powers over all accounts pertaining to government revenue and expenditures, including the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and establish techniques and methods for such review.

• Reyes v. COA, G.R. No. 125129, March 29, 1999, 305 SCRA 512, 517 — Cited for the rule that only when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may the Supreme Court entertain and grant a petition for certiorari to assail its actions.

• Bulilan v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 130057, December 22, 1998, 300 SCRA 445, 452–453 — Cited for the definition of negligence and the principle that the diligence required varies according to the nature of the situation and the importance of the act to be performed.

• Section 5, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Limits the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction to review of final judgments and orders of lower courts. Applied to determine that a Rule 45 petition was improper against a COA decision because COA is a constitutional commission, not a lower court.

• Section 7, Article IX, 1987 Constitution — Provides that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the COA may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt. Forms the constitutional basis for Rule 64.

• Section 73, Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code) — Requires an accountable officer to immediately notify the Commission or auditor of any loss of government funds caused by fire, theft, or other casualty or force majeure, and to present an application for relief with supporting evidence within 30 days. Failure to comply bars relief from liability.

• Section 101, Presidential Decree No. 1445 — Declares every officer whose duties permit or require possession or custody of government funds or property accountable for their safekeeping in conformity with law.

• Section 105, Presidential Decree No. 1445 — Imposes liability on accountable officers for losses occasioned by negligence in the keeping or use of government property, and for all losses attributable to negligence in the keeping of government funds.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Del Castillo, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Martires, and Tijam, JJ., concurred. Jardeleza, J., took no part due to prior OSG action.

N/A — The decision was unanimous among participating justices.