G.R. No. 211937
March 21, 2017
Facts:
On the night of March 16, 2005, unidentified suspects gained access inside and robbed the DILG-CAR Provincial Office. They carted away the contents of the vault amounting to ₱ 114,907.30. Petitioner Rosemarie Bindutan, Disbursing Officer II of the DILG-CAR, reported the robbery to the Provincial Office in Lagawe, Ifugao Police as well as to the Audit Team Leader (ATL) of DILG-CAR. On April 6, 2005, she requested the ATL to be relieved from liability over the stolen money.
In its own investigation and inspection report, the ATL found the robbery to have occurred while the brown filing steel cabinet was forcibly opened, the safe/vault was opened with ease using the number combination that was posted on the door of the safe/vault; the money inside the vault at the time or the robbery represents the salaries and wages of the DILG-Ifugao Provincial Personnel; and there was early withdrawal of the salaries and considering that the distance from the bank to the DILG of1icc is only a few meters away.
The Legal and Adjudication Office National (LAO-N) of the COA denied the request for relief of the petitioner because of her negligence. The petitioner moved for reconsideration. In its Decision the COA LSS denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The petitioner's appeal to the COA, Commission Proper, was later on denied.
Issue:
1. Whether or not petitioner is guilty of negligence.
2. Whether or not petitioner should be relieved from liability.
Held:
1. Yes. Petitioner is guilty of negligence. The findings show that the petitioner was severely negligent in the performance of her duties as the disbursing officer. She did not properly discharge her responsibility to safeguard the public funds entrusted to her. The ATL found that she had withdrawn from a nearby bank the funds for salaries 13 days from the deadline for the submission of reports, and had placed the funds inside the safety vault despite the number combination having been left posted at safety vault's very door. She was further found to have even failed to inform the security guard on duty that she had kept a considerable amount of cash in the safety vault if only to ensure that the amount would be safe.
As provided in Presidential Decree No. 1445, Section 105. (1) Every officer accountable for government property shall be liable for its money value in case of improper or unauthorized use or misapplication thereof, by himself or any person for whose acts he may be responsible. He shall likewise be liable for all losses, damages, or deterioration occasioned by negligence in the keeping or use of the property, whether or not it be at the time in his actual custody. (2) Every officer accountable for government funds shall be liable for all losses resulting from the unlawful deposit, use, or application thereof and for all losses attributable to negligence in the keeping of the funds.
2. No. The COA correctly denied the petitioner's request for relief from accountability. Being an officer of the Government having custody of public funds, she was fully accountable for the safekeeping of the funds under her custody. The fact that she had not denied having allowed the posting of the number combination on the vault's door manifested her negligence. Her contention that the loss of funds through robbery would still have happened even if she had removed the number combination from the door of the vault is unworthy of consideration in the face of the obtrusive fact that her negligence had enabled the loss of the funds under her safekeeping.
Wherefore, the SC affirms the decision of the COA.
No comments:
Post a Comment