~

~epuhlic of tbe llbilippineg

~upreme QCourt
:fflanila
EN BANC

MARIA THERESA G. G.R. No. 200628

GUTIERREZ,
Petitioner, Present:

SERENO, C.J.,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,*
PERALTA,
- versus - BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN, and
COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND JARDELEZA, ** JJ.
AUDITOR NARCISA DJ
JOAQUIN, Promulgated:
Respondents. January 13, 20~1~
x------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------x
DECISION

LEONEN,J.:

A cashier who is found to have been negligent in keeping the funds in

his or her custody cannot be relieved from his or her accountability for
amounts lost through robbery.

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

assailing the June 5, 2008 withholding order and the Commission on Audit's
jJ
• On leave.
•• No part.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 200628

January 31, 2012 decision holding Maria Theresa G. Gutierrez (Gutierrez)

liable for the 10,105,687.25 that was lost through robbery.

Gutierrez is a Cash Collecting Officer, with the designation of Cashier

III at National Food Authority-National Capital Region, National District
Office (NFA-NCR, NDO).1 On May 30, 2008, she had collections
amounting to 9,390,834.00, covered by Official Receipt Nos. 0420975 to
0421246.2 On that day, she placed the collections in a wooden cabinet.3

The next day, Gutierrez’s collections amounted to 1,505,625.00.4

Of that amount, 714,852.75 and an undeposited amount of 0.50 from
March 2008 were placed in a wooden cabinet.5 The rest was placed in the
safety vault.6

The total undeposited collection as of March 31, 2008 was

10,896,459.50. Of that amount, 10,105,687.25 was placed in the
“pearless” boxes7 in a wooden cabinet and 790,772.25 was placed in the
safety vault.8

On June 1, 2008, at about 1:35 a.m., armed men in military uniforms

with Philippine National Police-Security Agencies and Guards Supervision
Division (PNP-SAGSD) identifications entered the NFA-NCR, NDO.9 The
armed men disarmed NFA-NCR, NDO’s security guards and took
Gutierrez’s undeposited collections.10 Lockheed Detective and Watchman
Agency, Inc. was NFA-NCR, NDO’s contracted security agency.11

The security guards on duty executed their respective affidavits.

Based on their affidavits, armed men entered the NFA-NCR, NDO
compound after they had been disarmed, threatened, and tied up.12 The
security guards immediately reported the incident to the Valenzuela Police
Station,13 where an investigation report14 was issued consistent with the
security guards’ narrations in their affidavits.15

1
Rollo, pp. 26 and 125.
2
Id. at 26.
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Peerless boxes are movable boxes that can be used for archival or storage purposes. In the affidavit by
Maria Theresa Gutierrez submitted to the Commission on Audit and found on page 33 of the rollo, the
term used for these boxes was "'pearless' boxes."
8
Rollo, p. 27.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Id. at 27–28.
13
Id. at 28.
14
The investigation report was dated June 1, 2008.
15
Rollo, pp. 28, 94–95.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 200628

On June 3, 2008, the Commission on Audit, National Food Authority-

NCR, North District Office, Malanday, Valenzuela City, through State
Auditor Narcisa DJ Joaquin (State Auditor Joaquin), issued a demand letter
to Gutierrez.16 Gutierrez was informed that she must immediately produce
the missing funds amounting to 10,105,686.75.17 She was also ordered to
submit within 72 hours a written explanation why such shortage occurred.18

On June 5, 2008, the Commission on Audit, through State Auditor

Joaquin, issued a withholding order, addressed to Roberto S. Musngi
(Musngi), Manager of National Food Authority, North District Office.19
Musngi was informed that upon examination of Gutierrez’s account on June
1, 2008, it was established that there was a 10,105,686.75 shortage in
Gutierrez’s accountabilities.20 Pursuant to Section 37 of Presidential Decree
No. 1445, Musngi was directed to withhold Gutierrez’s salaries and other
emoluments so these could be applied to the satisfaction of the shortage.21

In response to the June 3, 2008 demand letter of the Commission on

Audit, Gutierrez executed an affidavit dated June 6, 2008 wherein she
narrated that she had been serving as National Food Authority’s Cash
Collecting Officer since 1985.22 Her office was located at the far end of the
National Food Authority building.23 That was where the “pearless” boxes
and the cabinet where she kept her collections could be found.24 Quoted
below is her explanation for using “pearless” boxes to keep her collections:

6. That because of the volume of money I accept every day, which

averages from 4 to 6 million pesos every day depending on the seasons,
most of my time inside the office is spent to counting, bundling by
different denominations the money. To emphasize the point, the money
that I am accepting from remittances and payments are of different
denominations, from twenty five centavo (Php0.25) coins to one thousand
peso (Php1,000.00) bills. The coins alone would amount in the average of
Twelve thousand pesos (Php12,000.00). I could literally say that from the
time I timed in the office at about 6:30 a.m. up to the time I timed out at
about 6:30 p.m., my only rest from my work is to [be] going to the ladies
room and the break during lunch time.

....

8. That when the rice crises came up on April 2008, volume of

work including the amount of money that comes into my office almost
doubled. That because of the heavy operations in our office I had an
average collection starting April 2008 of 6 to 9 Million Pesos every day of

16
Id. at 32.
17
Id.
18
Id.
19
Id. at 17 and 123.
20
Id. at 17, 28, and 123.
21
Id. at 17 and 123.
22
Id. at 33.
23
Id.
24
Id.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 200628

every denomination, with coins averaging from 12 to 16 thousand pesos

that needs to be counted, receipted, bundled, balanced, reported and kept.

9. That it is almost automatic that when I enter my office what

comes to my mind is to count the money and bundle them by the hundreds
and prepare receipts for the payments and remittances until the time to
leave at about 6:30 p.m. I would also cause the deposit of the money
collected the day before to Land Bank. But there were even times that
because of the volume of the money, bank representatives could not sort
out all the smaller bills (P20s and P50s) being picked up from our office as
the Armor van should be in the bank at 3:00 p.m. Thus, there would be
arrangements in the bank that the counting would continue inside their
office, which oftentimes lasts until late night.

10. That since April 2008 or the start of the heavy operations, I
have been putting some of the money in the “pearless” box, because of the
volume, which I have to carry and keep safe at the cabinet inside. I have
six (6) pearless boxes in the office.

....

13. That since May 30, 2008 is a Friday, banks are closed the
following day and the money collected on said date would have remained
in my office until the next banking day.

....

18. It was very unfortunate that the money accepted on May 30,
2008 and the collection in the night before the robbery were left in the
pearless box inside the cabinet and not inside the vault. But with the
volume of money, the vault has not enough space to accommodate all of
it.

19. And with the amount of work that I am doing every day from
6:30 in the morning up to 6:30 p.m., more or less, where my only rest is
literally going to the ladies room, and with the safe location of my office,
it did not come to my mind that this incident would come.

20. That I have nothing to do with what happened in the incident of

June 1, 2008 at 1:30 in the morning and I am not in control now to
produce those missing funds taken by the robbers.25

On June 10, 2008, Gutierrez requested relief from money

accountability for the loss of the collections.26 The letter was addressed to
State Auditor Joaquin.

In the letter dated June 26, 2008 addressed to State Auditor Joaquin,
Gutierrez appealed the withholding order issued on June 5, 2008.27 She
prayed that her salaries and emoluments be given to her while the robbery
incident was still under investigation.28 She was a widow who had three (3)

25
Id. at 33–35.
26
Id. at 28 and 60.
27
Id. at 87, 124, and 126.
28
Id. at 87.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 200628

dependents and an 85-year-old mother residing with her in need of medical

attention.29 She had no other source of income to support herself, her
dependents, and her mother.30

On June 26, 2008, State Auditor Joaquin denied Gutierrez’s appeal of

the withholding order.31 State Auditor Joaquin informed Gutierrez that there
was already a prima facie case for malversation against her under Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code.32

On July 11, 2008, Gutierrez filed a notice of appeal of State Auditor

Joaquin’s withholding order dated June 5, 2008.33

On July 21, 2008, Atty. Saturnino R. Rola, Jr., Director of the

National Food Authority, Enforcement, Investigation and Prosecution
Department, submitted a memorandum addressed to the Administrator,
Jessup P. Navarro.34 He found that the security agency was solidarily liable
with security guard Romeo Casta for the amount lost.35 He also found that
Gutierrez, by keeping her collections in unsecured “pearless” boxes and not
in a vault, was grossly negligent in safekeeping her collections.36 He
recommended that Gutierrez be administratively charged with dishonesty,
gross neglect of duty, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations without prejudice to
the filing of appropriate criminal charges.37 He also recommended the
restitution of the amount lost from Lockheed Detective and Watchman
Agency, Inc. Further, he recommended the ban of security guard Romeo
Casta from deployment in any National Food Authority installations.38

Similar incidents of robbery at different National Food Authority

offices involving Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. were
reported between 2006 and 2008.39

On September 11, 2008, Commission on Audit Director IV Tito S.

Nabua (Director Nabua) issued a decision denying Gutierrez’s appeal40 and
expressing his agreement with the issuance of the withholding order.41 The
robbery incident was acknowledged in the decision.42 However, Gutierrez’s

29
Id.
30
Id.
31
Id. at 18 and 124.
32
Id. at 18.
33
Id. at 21 and 45.
34
Id. at 88–93.
35
Id. at 91.
36
Id. at 92.
37
Id. at 93.
38
Id.
39
Id. at 96–107.
40
Id. at 19–20 and 124.
41
Id. at 19–20.
42
Id.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 200628

alleged act of negligence in the performance of her duties could not be set
aside.43 Her failure to follow safekeeping procedures showed lack of due
care on her part.44 Aside from Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the
liabilities of an accountable officer are found in Section 105 of Presidential
Decree No. 1445.45

Gutierrez filed a motion for reconsideration of the September 11,

2008 decision of Director Nabua on the ground that he did not give her a
chance to file a memorandum of appeal before submission of the case for
resolution.46 According to Gutierrez, this was a violation of the rules and of
her right to due process.47 She also cited reversible error in upholding State
Auditor Joaquin’s order despite lack of factual and legal bases as ground for
her motion.48

On January 31, 2012, the Commission on Audit denied her request for
relief from money accountability.49 Its ruling is reproduced as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission DENIES

the herein request for relief from money accountability, there being
positive showing of fault or negligence on the part of Ms. Maria Theresa
G. Gutierrez in the safekeeping and custody of subject government funds.

Accordingly, Ms. Gutierrez shall be liable to pay to the NFA the

missing amount of 10,105,687.25. This is without prejudice to the right
of the NFA-NCR, NDO to proceed against Lockheed Detective and
Watchman Agency, Inc. for the indemnification of the loss as security
services provider to the NFA-NCR, NDO, Valenzuela City.50

The Commission on Audit found that Gutierrez was negligent in

safekeeping her collections.51 Placement of collections in a “pearless” box
instead of in the safety vault, especially given the volume of collections,
constituted gross negligence on her part.52 Her 20-year service aggravated
her negligence.53 It should have made her more “security-conscious.”54

The Commission on Audit also found that the security guards’ failure
to secure National Food Authority’s premises was a violation of the contract

43
Id.
44
Id.
45
Id.
46
Id. at 21.
47
Id.
48
Id.
49
Rollo, pp. 26–31. The decision was signed by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan and
Commissioners Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Heidi L. Mendoza.
50
Id. at 30.
51
Id. at 29.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Id.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 200628

between National Food Authority and Lockheed Detective and Watchman

Agency, Inc.55

We decide whether Gutierrez’s due process rights were violated when

the Commission on Audit decided her appeal without requiring her to file an
appeal memorandum. We also decide whether Gutierrez is liable for the
amounts lost through a robbery.

Petitioner emphasizes that she was first assisted by counsel only when
she filed a notice of appeal. Respondent auditor had already issued the
withholding order dated June 5, 2008 and letter dated June 26, 2008 before
petitioner was assisted by counsel.

Petitioner argues that her right to due process was violated when a
decision was rendered against her without giving her a chance to file an
appeal memorandum in accordance with Section 5 of Rule V of the Revised
Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit. The appeal memorandum
was her chance to raise issues against respondent auditor’s orders to prove
her case and to submit evidence to support her defense.56

Petitioner’s right to due process was further violated when her motion
for reconsideration was resolved by the Commission on Audit instead of by
Director Nabua. This prevented her from filing a petition for review of
Director Nabua’s decision before the Commission on Audit.57

Petitioner cites Article IX(A), Section 7 of the Constitution to support

her argument that she has a right to present her side in a memorandum.58 It
provides:

Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all

its Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty days
from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case
or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon
the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required
by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself.
Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to
the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner argues that aside from the right to be heard, administrative

due process also requires the right to present evidence and for such evidence
to be considered by the deciding tribunal.59

55
Id. at 30.
56
Id. at 128.
57
Id.
58
Id. at 129.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 200628

Lastly, petitioner points out that the cause of the shortage was the
robbery incident, which was a result of the negligence of the security guards
and not her negligence.60 The vault that was assigned to her did not have
enough space to accommodate her collections.61

On the other hand, respondents argue that petitioner was not deprived
of due process when she was not given the opportunity to file an appeal
memorandum. Her affidavit was a sufficient platform to raise her
defenses.62 Moreover, the presence of a counsel is not required in
administrative proceedings.63

Respondents also argue that petitioner cannot ask the Director or the
Auditor to allow her to file an appeal memorandum since it is the
Commission on Audit that has the exclusive jurisdiction over requests for
relief from accountability in excess of 500,000.00.64 This, according to
respondent, is based on Commission on Audit Resolution No. 93-605 dated
August 3, 1993.65

Finally, respondents argue that the circumstances show that petitioner

fell short of the demands of her position as cashier.66 What she could have
done was to request additional vaults if the vaults in her possession were not
enough to accommodate all her collections.67

We rule for respondents.

Petitioner’s due process

rights were not violated

Petitioner argues that she was assisted by counsel only after a

withholding order had already been issued. She also argued that the
Commission on Audit Director’s issuance of a decision on her appeal
without requiring her to file an appeal memorandum was a violation of her
due process rights.

59
Id.
60
Id. at 132–133.
61
Id. at 131.
62
Id. at 147–148.
63
Id. at 148.
64
Id. at 149–150.
65
Id. at 149.
66
Id. at 152–153.
67
Id. at 153.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 200628

Petitioner’s arguments are not tenable.

The right to counsel under Section 12(1) of Article III of the

Constitution applies in criminal proceedings, but not in administrative
proceedings. It is a right given to persons accused of an offense during
criminal investigation.68 Any proceeding conducted by an administrative
body is not part of the criminal investigation or prosecution.69

Thus, this court said in Remolona v. Civil Service Commission:70

While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at

times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under existing
laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by
counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent’s
capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the
person being investigated with counsel. In an administrative proceeding, a
respondent has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not. This
is clear from the provisions of Section 32, Article VII of Republic Act No.
2260 (otherwise known as the Civil Service Act) and Section 39,
paragraph 2, Rule XIV (on discipline) of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as
the Administrative Code of 1987). Thus, the right to counsel is not always
imperative in administrative investigations because such inquiries are
conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit
disciplinary measure against erring public officers and employees, with
the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service. As such, the
hearing conducted by the investigating authority is not part of a criminal
prosecution.71

While the purpose of criminal proceedings is to determine if a person

suspected of committing an offense has indeed committed an offense, the
purpose of an administrative proceeding is to determine if a person in public
office has violated the trust reposed in him or her by the public. In a
criminal proceeding, if a person is found guilty of an offense, the
corresponding punishment is imposed primarily to protect the public from
being exposed to and correct his or her deviant behavior. In an
administrative proceeding, if a person is found administratively liable, the
corresponding penalty is imposed primarily to preserve public trust and
protect the integrity of public service.72

Petitioner is not being accused of or investigated for a crime. The

Commission on Audit’s withholding order and its denial of petitioner’s
request for relief from shortage were issued after it had made a finding that

68
Lumiqued v. Exevea, 346 Phil. 807, 821–822 (1997) [Per J. Romero, En Banc].
69
Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, 414 Phil. 590 (2001) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
70
Id.
71
Id. at 599.
72
See also Encinas v. Agustin, G.R. No. 187317, April 11, 2013, 696 SCRA 240, 268 [Per C.J. Sereno,
En Banc].
Decision 10 G.R. No. 200628

the money entrusted to petitioner was lost. A finding of criminal liability

was not the reason for the Commission on Audit’s issuances. The
Commission on Audit has no jurisdiction to investigate a crime or to make a
finding of criminal liability. Any proceeding conducted prior to these
issuances was for the purpose of determining if petitioner’s salaries should
be withheld or if petitioner should be relieved from her liability as a cashier.

Petitioner argues that Rule V, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of

Procedure of the Commission on Audit73 requires that she be given an
opportunity to file an appeal memorandum before the case is submitted for
decision. Section 5 is cited as follows:

Section 5. APPEAL MEMORANDUM AND REPLY – Upon

receipt of the records of the case, the Director shall issue an Order
requiring the appellant to file an appeal memorandum within
twenty (20) days from receipt of the order. The appellant shall
serve a copy of his appeal memorandum to the Auditor or appellee
who may reply thereto within the same period of time. With the
filing of the appeal memorandum and reply or lapse of the period
within which to file them, the appeal shall be deemed submitted for
decision.

Petitioner also argues that her due process rights were violated when
the Commission on Audit decided her motion for reconsideration of the
Commission on Audit Director’s decision dated September 11, 2008, and
denied her request for relief from accountability without her filing a
memorandum or a petition for review. She cites Article IX(A), Section 7 of
the Constitution:

Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all

its Members, any case or matter brought before it within sixty days
from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or
matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the
filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty
days from receipt of a copy thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated when the

Commission on Audit Director had failed to require her to submit an appeal
memorandum before he decided her appeal of the State Auditor’s issuance
of a withholding order. There was also no violation of due process rights
when the Commission on Audit issued its January 31, 2012 decision denying
her request for relief from accountability, without a petition for review of the

73
BOC Memorandum Circular No. 32-98 (1997), otherwise known as the REVISED RULES OF
PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 200628

Commission on Audit Director’s decision. The right to appeal is not part of

due process.74 Neither is it a natural right.75

Moreover, petitioner’s relief from accountability may be decided by

the Commission on Audit at the first instance. Based on Commission on
Audit Resolution No. 93-605,76 only the Commission on Audit may approve
requests for relief from accountabilities amounting to more than
500,000.00. Thus:

Now, therefore, pursuant to Article IX-D, Section 2(2) of the

Constitution, Section 73 of PD 1445 and in conformity with Section 378
of the Local Government Code, the Commission Proper hereby resolves,
as it does hereby resolve, to authorize the following COA Officials to act
on requests for relief from property and/or money accountability in the
amounts indicated hereunder, except in cases of questions of law, without
prejudice to the usual appeal that may be taken therefrom to the
Commission Proper, pursuant to Section 48 of PD 1445.

Total Amount of Money or

Approving COA Official Cost of Property Involved

Corporate and National Unit Auditor not exceeding 50,000

Provincial and City Auditor

Director/Officer-in-Charge in excess of 50,000 up to

of Central and Regional Offices 100,000

Assistant Commissioner in excess of 100,000 up to

200,000

COA Chairman in excess of 200,000 up to

500,000

Commission Proper above 500,000

The lost accountability involved in this case amounts to

10,105,687.75.

In any case, we determine if petitioner’s due process rights were

violated in the course of the proceedings before the Commission on Audit.

This court in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations77 ruled that

administrative due process requires only the following:

74
See Quileste v. People, 599 Phil. 117, 122 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]; See also La
Campana Development Corporation v. Development Bank of the Philippines, 598 Phil. 612 (2009)
[Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
75
Id.
76
The resolution was dated August 3, 1993.
77
Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940) [Per J. Laurel, En Banc].
Decision 12 G.R. No. 200628

(a) The party should be allowed to present his or her own case and submit
supporting evidence;
(b) The deciding tribunal must consider the party’s evidence;
(c) There is evidence to support the tribunal’s decision;
(d) The evidence supporting the tribunal’s decision must be substantial or
such “relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion”;78
(e) The tribunal’s decision was based on the evidence presented or the records
of the case disclosed to the parties;
(f) The tribunal’s decision must be based on the judges’ independent
consideration of the facts and law governing the case; and
(g) The tribunal’s decision must be rendered such that the issues of the case
and the reasons for the decisions are known to the parties.79

In sum, due process in administrative proceedings does not

necessarily require a trial type of hearing. Neither does it require an
exchange of pleadings between or among the parties. Due process is
satisfied if the party who is properly notified of allegations against him or
her is given an opportunity to defend himself or herself against those
allegations, and such defense was considered by the tribunal in arriving at its
own independent conclusions. This court explained in Ledesma v. Court of
Appeals:80

Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge

against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself.
In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving
reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the
accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of
due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or
as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain
one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action
or ruling complained of.

....

Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due

process in its strict judicial sense for it is enough that the party is
given the chance to be heard before the case against him is
decided.81

Petitioner’s arguments and the issues she raised are sufficiently

expressed in her affidavit submitted to the Commission on Audit, her motion
for reconsideration of the Commission on Audit Director’s decision, and her
petition and memorandum submitted to this court. Even though petitioner
was not able to file an appeal memorandum, she was able to state her
substantive defenses in the pleadings she filed before the Commission on
Audit and this court. According to petitioner, the money that was lost

78
Id. at 642.
79
Id. at 642–644.
80
Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 565 Phil. 731 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
81
Id. at 740–741.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 200628

through robbery was not a result of her negligence. She kept the money in
“pearless” boxes for practical and not for malicious reasons.

The decisions of the State Auditor, the Commission on Audit

Director, and the Commission on Audit had considered these facts and
defenses before they made conclusions against petitioner. Therefore,
petitioner cannot say that her due process rights were violated for the lack of
order to file an appeal memorandum.

II

Relief from cashier’s liability

cannot be granted if the cashier
was negligent in keeping funds
under his or her custody

As a cashier for the National Food Authority, petitioner qualified as

an accountable officer under Presidential Decree No. 1445. Accountable
officers are government officers whose duties require them to possess or be
in custody of government funds or properties.82 They are in charge of the
safekeeping of the funds or properties under their custody.83

Presidential Decree No. 1445 makes cashiers liable for the value of
the money or property in their custody in case they were lost because of
negligence or unlawful deposit, use, or application. Thus:

Section 105. Measure of liability of accountable officers.

(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. 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.

Imposing liability on cashiers for lost money or property in their

custody means that the value of the money or property becomes their debt.

82
Pres. Decree No. 1445 (1978), sec. 101.
83
Pres. Decree No. 1445 (1978), sec. 101.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 200628

The Commission on Audit has the power to withhold payment of

money due to persons indebted to the government. Section 37 of
Presidential Decree No. 1445 provides:

Section 37. Retention of money for satisfaction of indebtedness to

government. When any person is indebted to any government
agency, the Commission may direct the proper officer to withhold
the payment of any money due such person or his estate to be
applied in satisfaction of the indebtedness.

Petitioner does not deny that the money for which she was
accountable as a cashier was lost through robbery. She also did not deny
that she kept the greater portion of the amount lost, not in the vault, but in
boxes, for practical reasons. She was not motivated by malice when she
kept the money that was in her possession in the boxes.

Without going to the issue of the existence of negligence, the

Commission on Audit may already issue a withholding order for petitioner’s
salaries and emoluments because of this. Petitioner’s act of keeping the
money in boxes instead of in the vault can be subsumed under “unlawful
deposit” that may cause a cashier to incur liability in case the unlawfully
deposited money was lost.

A similar case, Leano v. Domingo,84 showed that the safety of money

cannot be ensured when it is deposited in enclosures other than the safety
vault. Leano also involves a government cashier whose money
accountability was lost through robbery. As in this case, the cashier did not
keep her money accountabilities in the vault. Requesting this court to
review the Commission on Audit’s denial of her request for accountability,
Leano argued that she had no other choice but to use a steel cabinet to keep
her money accountabilities because the former cashier did not entrust to her
the safety vault’s combination. This court upheld the Commission on
Audit’s decision to deny Leano’s request for relief from accountabilities and
found her to be negligent in handling her money accountabilities:

[I]t is evident that petitioner fell short of the demands inherent in

her position. As aptly argued by the Solicitor General, an exercise
of proper diligence expected of her position would have compelled
petitioner to request an immediate change of the combination of
the safe. However, the record is bare of any showing that petitioner
had, at least, exerted any effort to have the combination changed,
content with the fact that, according to her, the former cashier also
used the steel cabinet as depository of the funds.

In addition, it was found that the use of the steel cabinet was not a
wise and prudent decision. The steel cabinet, even when locked, at
times could be pulled open, thus it can be surmised that even

84
G.R. No. 84378, July 4, 1991, 198 SCRA 800 [Per J. Paras, En Banc].
Decision 15 G.R. No. 200628

without the use of a key, the robbery could be committed once the
culprits succeed in entering the room (Progress Report of the
Police dated February 28, 1985). Moreover, the original key of the
steel cabinet was left inside a small wooden box placed near the
steel cabinet; it is therefore highly possible that the
said steel cabinet was opened with the use of its original key
(Police Alarm Report).85

Hence, keeping National Food Authority collections outside the vault

constituted negligence on the part of petitioner.

The test of negligence is stated in Picart v. Smith, Jr.:86

The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a

particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the
alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an
ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not,
then he is guilty of negligence.87

“The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by

reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him.
The Law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the
man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by
that.”88

Petitioner is negligent because she failed to use “that reasonable care

and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same
situation.”89 A cashier in her position would have used the vault to keep her
collections. Petitioner failed to do this. Her negligence is made more
pronounced by the fact that the collections kept in the vault were not taken
by the robbers.

Petitioner insists that the space in the vault was not enough to
accommodate all her collections. However, she admitted that she had been
receiving relatively large collections in the past three (3) months prior to the
robbery. She should have requested an additional vault wherein she could
safely keep her collections. She could also have set aside time to deposit her
collections for the day considering the amount of cash she had been
collecting, in order to prevent its accumulation. This could have ensured
that the vault’s space would be sufficient to keep any remaining collection
after the deposit. This could also have prevented her collections from
accumulating to an amount that rendered any loss through untoward
incidents such as robbery significant. Petitioner failed to even allege that

85
Id. at 804–805.
86
37 Phil. 809 (1918) [Per J. Street, En Banc].
87
Id. at 813.
88
Leano v. Domingo, G.R. No. 84378, July 4, 1991, 198 SCRA 800, 804 [Per J. Paras, En Banc].
89
Id.
 Decision 16 G.R. No. 200628

she exerted effort to obtain additional vaults or to set aside time to deposit
her collections to the bank.

For these reasons, petitioner cannot be relieved from liability. A

person who is negligent in keeping the funds cannot be relieved from
. b'l'
11a 1 1ty.90

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

/' MARVIC M.'V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

I
ANTONIO T. CARPIO ELASCO,JR.
Associate Justice Assefciate Justice

~~~{!Mli£ On leave
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice

~~>
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ~- .&..LI.Ur1.&.~il'1lr1
y ......

Associate Justice

90 Id.
Decision 17 G.R. No. 200628

REZ JOSE C ·~ENDOZA

A~~JJ~tice

IENVENIDO L. REYES .
AAfl_ tt.tNt/
ESTELA M.'~RLAS-BERNABE
'-
Associate Justice Associate Justice

(No Part)
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the court.

"'?9 ~-ftC ..._....:s

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice