In Rosemarie B. Bintudan v. The Commission on Audit, the Supreme Court held that an accountable officer is liable for the loss of public funds if their negligence contributed to the loss, even if the direct cause was theft. The Court emphasized that posting the combination to a safety vault constitutes negligence. This ruling underscores the high standard of care expected from those entrusted with public funds, reinforcing the principle that negligence in safekeeping can lead to personal liability, regardless of whether they directly participated in the theft.

When a Posted Combination Leads to Public Funds Loss: Who Pays?

Rosemarie Bintudan, a Disbursing Officer II at the Department of Interior and Local Government-Cordillera Administrative Region (DILG-CAR), faced a challenging situation. In March 2005, the DILG-CAR Provincial Office in Lagawe, Ifugao, was robbed. The culprits carted away P114,907.30 from the office vault. The Commission on Audit (COA) found Bintudan accountable due to negligence. The core issue was whether Bintudan’s actions, particularly tolerating the posting of the vault’s combination, contributed to the loss, thereby warranting the denial of her request for relief from accountability.

The COA based its decision on an investigation report. It revealed that the vault was easily opened because the combination was posted on the door. Further, an early withdrawal of salaries and failure to inform security exacerbated the risk. Bintudan argued that she wasn’t the one who posted the combination and that early withdrawals were standard practice. The COA Legal Services Sector (LSS) and later the Commission Proper denied her request. The COA held that her actions constituted contributory negligence.

The Supreme Court affirmed the COA’s decision, emphasizing that Bintudan’s recourse should have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. More significantly, the Court addressed the substantive issue of negligence. The Court highlighted the constitutional mandate of the COA as “the guardian of public funds.” It stressed that the COA’s decisions should only be disturbed if there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, acting without or in excess of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court defined negligence as the failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. This definition is crucial, because it frames the standard against which Bintudan’s actions were assessed. The Court found that Bintudan’s actions fell short of this standard. She failed to safeguard public funds properly. Allowing the combination to remain posted on the vault door, withdrawing salaries early, and not informing security personnel of the large amount of cash were all acts of negligence.

Presidential Decree No. 1445, also known as The Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, outlines the responsibilities of accountable officers. Several sections of this decree are particularly relevant. Section 73 addresses losses due to theft or force majeure, requiring immediate notification to the COA. Section 101 emphasizes the accountability of officers for government funds and property. Most critically, Section 105 details the measure of liability, stating:

Section 105. Measure of liability of accountable officers.

(1) Every officer accountable for government property shall be liable for its money value in case or improper or unauthorized use or misapplication thereof, by himself or any person for whose acts he may be responsible. We 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.

The Court emphasized that the loss of funds was directly linked to Bintudan’s negligence. The robbers could easily access the funds due to the posted combination, effectively rendering the vault useless. Bintudan’s failure to remove the combination was a critical oversight. It eliminated the need for the robbers to use force, thereby facilitating the theft. The Court rejected the argument that the robbery might have occurred regardless, stating that Bintudan’s negligence directly enabled the loss.

Even if Bintudan hadn’t personally posted the combination, her failure to remove it was a significant breach of her duty. The Court highlighted the principle that an accountable officer is responsible for the safekeeping of funds. They can only be relieved if the loss wasn’t due to their negligence. The Court found that Bintudan’s failure to exercise simple prudence by removing the combination constituted negligence.

The practical implications of this ruling are far-reaching. It establishes a clear precedent for holding accountable officers liable for negligence in handling public funds. It emphasizes the need for strict adherence to security protocols and reinforces the importance of due diligence in safekeeping government assets. This case serves as a stark reminder that even indirect contributions to a loss can result in personal liability for those entrusted with public funds. The standard of care expected is high, and any deviation can have severe consequences.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Rosemarie Bintudan was negligent in her duty as a disbursing officer, leading to the loss of public funds, and if she should be relieved from accountability.
What was the finding of the Commission on Audit (COA)?	The COA found Bintudan negligent for tolerating the posting of the safety vault combination, early withdrawal of funds, and failure to inform security, thus denying her request for relief from accountability.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court affirmed the COA’s decision, emphasizing that Bintudan’s negligence directly contributed to the loss of funds, making her liable.
What is the standard of care expected from accountable officers?	Accountable officers are expected to exercise the care that a reasonable person would under similar circumstances to safeguard public funds and property.
What is the legal basis for holding accountable officers liable?	Presidential Decree No. 1445, particularly Section 105, outlines the liability of accountable officers for losses resulting from negligence in the keeping of government funds.
What constitutes negligence in handling public funds?	Negligence includes failing to secure funds properly, such as posting the combination to a safety vault, early withdrawal of funds without justification, and not informing security personnel about significant amounts of cash.
Can an accountable officer be relieved from liability in cases of theft?	Yes, if the officer can prove that the loss was not due to their negligence and that they took reasonable precautions to prevent the theft.
What is the proper remedy for appealing a COA decision to the Supreme Court?	The proper remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

This case underscores the critical importance of diligence and prudence in handling public funds. Accountable officers must take all reasonable steps to secure funds under their custody. They must ensure that security protocols are strictly followed. This ruling serves as a strong deterrent against negligence. It highlights the potential for personal liability when entrusted with public resources.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rosemarie B. Bintudan v. COA, G.R. No. 211937, March 21, 2017