AO kinasuhan ng COA dahil sa di pag-ingat sa Number Combination ng Cash Vault ng kanyang Ahensya

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. – Lucas P. Bersamin

Minsan sa isang kabundukan ng Cordillera, probinsya ng Ifugao, bayan ng Lagawe, may isang accountable officer ang naparusahan ng dahil sa pag-tape ng number combination ng vault na kung saan itinatago ng kanyang opisina ang kanilang cash (sahod ng mga empleyado at iba pang gastusin). Kaya naman, nanakawan sila.

Anyare?

Sa gabi ng March 16, 2005, pinasok ng mga di pa nakikilalang magnanakaw ang opisina ng accountable officer. Nakulimbat ng mga magnanakaw ang pera ng opisina na nagkakahalaga ng mahigit sa P114,000 na para sana sa sahod ng mga empleyado sa linggong yun.

Kinabukasan, ini-report ng accountable officer sa pulis at sa COA ang nangyari at humiling ito na ma-relieved sya sa pananagutan.

Sa kasamaang palad, hindi ito pinagbigyan ng COA.

Bakit?

Sabi ng accountable officer, dapat mapawalang-sala daw sya sapagkat ang nangyari ay pagnanakaw at wala syang kinalaman doon. Hindi napunta sa kanya ang pera kundi napunta ito sa magnanakaw.

Hindi ito tinanggap ng COA dahil nanakawan ang opisina dahil diumano sa kapabayaan ng accountable officer (due to negligence).

Noong 2007, humiling muli ng reconsideration ang accountable officer at sinabi ang mga ito:

“a) That she was not the one who posted the number combination of the vault at its door;

b) That the early withdrawal of the salaries of the personnel was not her own idea as she was just implementing what was previously agreed upon by the officers and personnel; and

c) That it is the duty of the security personnel to protect the facilities and premises he is guarding regardless of the presence or absence of cash in the premises.”

Sa desisyon noong 2009, hindi muling tinanggap ng COA ang dahilan na inihain ng accountable officer. Sabi ng COA:

“(xxx) the COA LSS denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by observing that her acts of posting the number combination of the safety vault on its door, the early withdrawal of the funds for the salaries of the employees, and her failure to inform the security office of the large amount of money kept in the vault constituted contributory negligence on her part.”

Dahil dito, naghain ang accountable officer ng motion for reconsideration sa Korte Suprema.

Nanindigan ang accountable officer na wala syang kasalanan. Iginiit ng accountable officer na:

“[xxx] she was not to blame for the loss of the funds during the robbery; that she had not personally posted the number combination of the safety vault on its door; that the practice of posting the number combination had started after the death of [a former Disbursing Officer], when she was then requested to open the vault in the presence of other personnel; that the posting of the number combination relieved the office, and that such posting benefitted the office because it ensured “that regular financial transactions concerning the office may carry on without any interruption” in case of sudden death, amnesia or memory lapse of the disbursing officer.”

Muli, hindi tinanggap ng Korte Suprema ang inihain na dahilan ng accountable officer.

Sabi ng Korte Suprema:

Una, hindi nararapat at naaayon ang hiling ng accountable officer na review on certiorari sapagkat ito ay para lamang sa mga desisyon ng mababang hukuman. Ang pinapareview na desisyon ay nagmula sa COA.

We emphasize that an appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is available only as a remedy from a decision or final order of a lower court.

Pangalawa, kulang sa merit ang dahilan ng accountable officer sapagkat sabi ng Korte Suprema:

“Even if the posting of the number combination on the safety vault’s door had not been at the instance of the petitioner herself, her exculpation from liability would still not be granted considering her failure to remove it therefrom. She should have easily anticipated that the posting of the number combination would leave the funds kept inside the vault prone to theft and robbery. Simple prudence on her part would have instructed her to remove the number combination from the safety vault’s door; yet, she did not. 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.”

Source: G.R. No. 211937, Supreme Court, Lawphil.net

[Related: 10 Internal Controls COA Wants Government Agencies to Observe]