Case Citation: Hernandez v COA G.R. No. 71871 (1989) Parties: Teodoro M. Hernandez, Petitioner versus The Honorable Commission on Audit, Respondent
Facts: Teodoro Hernandez, the officer-in-charge and special disbursing officer of the Ternate Beach Project of the Philippine Tourism Authority in Cavite, was tasked to go to the main office in Manila on July 1, 1993. He was told to encash two (2) checks to pay for the wages and expenses of the said operation. He estimated finishing at around 10:00 pm and getting back to Cavite at around 2:00pm. However, because some processes got delayed, he knew he would be finishing at 3:00pm. Thinking that the workers would be disappointed in having to wait for the salaries, as the next 3 days were non-working days, he decided to encash the checks anyway. Hernandez weighed his options – whether whether to return to Cavite and arrive in the evening, or to go home to Bulacan and leave for Cavite first thing in the morning. He decided to go to Bulacan, thinking it was quicker, safer, and less risky. En route to Cavite were dark roads, where chances of robberies were more prominent. Unluckily enough, while the jeep he rode was stuck in EDSA traffic, two men came in and stole the money. Hernandez immediately ran after Alvarez, one of the thieves – who was later on convicted for the crime; but was unable to catch up with the man who had the money.
History: On July 5, Hernandez filed for a request of relief from accountability, in accordance to Section 638 on the Revised Administrative Code. The General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority, the Corporate Auditor, and later on the NCR Regional Trial Director of the COA all
favorably indorsed the said request. On January 17, 1984, Hernandez was absolved of negligence. However, on June 29, 1984, the COA, through Chairman Tantuico, denied the request. Issues: 1. Whether or not the Francisco Tantuico, in his capacity as the COA Chairman, acted in grave abuse of discretion [amounting from excess jurisdiction] ; and 2. Whether or not Hernandez should be held accountable for the stolen money Held: No, Hernandez should not be held liable for the stolen money. Pursuant to Section 638 of the RAC, the money lost during transit due to a casualty, given that a request of relief must be given to and approved by the Auditor General or provincial auditor. Because Hernandez complied with the said requirements, the Chairman therefore acted outside of his jurisdiction. The petition is granted. Ratio: Section 638 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that: When a loss of government funds or property occurs while the same is in transit or is caused by fire, theft, or other casualty, the officer accountable therefor or having custody thereof shall immediately notify the Auditor General, or the provincial auditor, according as a matter is within the original jurisdiction of the one or the other, and within thirty days or such longer period as the Auditor, or provincial auditor, may in the particular case allow, shall present his application for relief, with the available evidence in support thereof. An officer who fails to comply with this requirement shall not be relieved of liability or allowed credit for any such loss in the settlement of his accounts. Hernandez was able to complete request for relief from accountability within the given time pe riod. The Auditor was able to absolve Hernandez form accountability on January 27, 1984. Chairman Tantuico was not in the position to revoke such decision. Even if he were, the facts were that Hernandez had in mind, only the best interest for the workers. The events were fortuitous, and no one could have known otherwise.
