G.R. No. 71871 November 6, 1989
TEODORO M. HERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

FACTS

Teodoro M. Hernandez, the officer-in-charge and special disbursing officer of the Ternate Beach Project, encashed two checks for employee wages and operating expenses on a Friday afternoon, July 1, 1983. The processing was delayed, concluding at 3:00 PM. Concerned that his employees would otherwise have to wait until the following Tuesday to receive their pay, he decided to encash the checks despite the late hour. Faced with the choice of driving to his office in Ternate, Cavite, which involved a long trip including a dark and lonely road, or taking the money to his nearer home in Marilao, Bulacan, for safekeeping overnight, he opted for the latter, deeming it the safer course.
While on a passenger jeep en route to Marilao, Hernandez was robbed by two armed men. He immediately gave chase, apprehended one robber after a struggle, and sustained injuries. The apprehended robber was convicted, but the stolen public funds were not recovered. Hernandez sought relief from money accountability under the Revised Administrative Code. While his request was favorably endorsed by his agency and a COA Regional Director, the Commission on Audit (COA) Chairman ultimately denied it, ruling that Hernandez was negligent for not bringing the funds directly to his office for safekeeping, which allegedly could have prevented the loss.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Hernandez’s request for relief from accountability by finding him negligent for the loss of the public funds due to robbery.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the COA and relieving Hernandez from accountability. The legal logic centered on the absence of negligence and the occurrence of a fortuitous event. The Court found that Hernandez’s actions were motivated by commendable concern for his employees’ welfare in ensuring timely wage payment. His decision to encash the checks late on a Friday and his choice to take the funds to his nearer home overnight were evaluated under the standard of a reasonable and prudent person. The Court held that this choice was logical given the comparative hazards and distances, and it could not be deemed imprudent.
The robbery itself was characterized as a fortuitous event—an unforeseen assault in broad daylight on a busy highway—for which Hernandez could not be held liable. His subsequent conduct, pursuing the robbers at personal risk and facilitating a conviction, demonstrated his vigilance. Therefore, the COA’s finding of negligence constituted a rigid and incorrect application of the law, as the circumstances did not warrant holding Hernandez accountable for the loss. The decision underscores that accountability for public funds does not extend to losses arising from unforeseen events where the accountable officer has acted with the diligence of a good father of a family.