Angeles v. COA

 

Angeles v. COA

G.R. No. 228795

December 1, 2020

 

FACTS:

Cashier Lily De Jesus (Lily) and revenue collection officer Estrellita Ramos of the Office of the Treasurer of the Municipality of San Mateo, Rizal, on board their service vehicle, went to the Land Bank of the Philippines to withdraw P1,300,000.00 in payroll money. On the way back to their office, a man crossed the street and fired a gunshot on the driver's side of the vehicle. The bullet hit the driver's left arm and pierced his left chest, causing him to eventually pass out. Another man broke the glass window in the passenger's side of the vehicle and forcibly took from Lily the black bag containing the payroll money and subsequently shot her to death. A request for relief from accountability of Estelita and Lily's estate was made, but the same was denied by the Adjudication and Settlement Board, and later by the Commission on Audit for the reason that they failed to have a security escort during the transit of money.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner was negligent in handling the payroll money

HELD:

No. The standard of care in the utilization of public properties and funds is the diligence of a good father of a family. Section 105 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines relieves officers from accountability (1) in the absence of evidence that they had acted negligently in handling public properties and funds; (2) when the loss occurs while they are in transit; or (3) if the loss is caused by fire, theft, or other casualty or force majeure. In the case of Bintudahan v. COA, the Supreme Court explained that negligence is a want of care required by the circumstances. Here, the petitioner Estelita and Lily were found to have exercised the reasonable care and caution that an ordinary and prudent person would have observed in a similar situation. They used the service vehicle driven by the municipal driver in going to and from the bank which is a safer means of transportation. They also followed the existing practice of securing travel passes and the procedure in withdrawing the payroll money. The transaction was also done during regular office hours. However, the armed men attacked while they were en route back to the office. This robbery was unexpected to occur in broad daylight on a public street. It is beyond the petitioner’s control. The Commission on Audit’s finding that the accountable officers, in hindsight, should have requested a security escort is insufficient to establish negligence.