GR 130057; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130057 December 22, 1998
HERMOGINA U. BULILAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Hermogina U. Bulilan, the Cashier of Visaya State College of Agriculture (VISCA), withdrew funds to prepare the March 1990 payroll. As she was scheduled to travel, she and her staff prepared the payroll over the weekend, placing the cash in individual pay envelopes. The envelopes, being too bulky for the office safe, were instead placed inside an unlocked steel cabinet within the Cashier’s Office. On the night of March 11, 1990, a robbery occurred, resulting in the loss of P566,468.91. The investigation report indicated the intruder took a route that suggested familiarity with the building.
Petitioner sought relief from accountability under Section 73 of P.D. 1445, which allows credit for losses due to casualty or force majeure. The Commission on Audit (COA) denied her request, finding her negligent in safeguarding the funds. COA highlighted her failure to use a more secure concrete vault available on-site, her non-compliance with deposit frequency rules, and her failure to properly turn over the funds to the disbursing officer before her intended travel.
ISSUE
Did the Commission on Audit err in denying petitioner’s request for relief from accountability for the lost government funds?
RULING
No, the Commission on Audit did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the COA decision, denying the petition both for being an improper remedy and for lacking merit. The petition was filed under Rule 45, which is limited to questions of law. The determination of negligence is a question of fact, the review of which falls outside the scope of Rule 45. The proper remedy from a COA decision is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as provided by the Constitution.
On the substantive issue, the Court upheld COA’s finding of negligence. The loss was not a fortuitous event that would warrant relief under Section 73 of P.D. 1445, as the element of unavoidable casualty was absent. Petitioner’s own actions contributed to the risk. She failed to exercise the diligence required of a cashier by not utilizing the available secured concrete vault, violating deposit regulations which would have minimized the cash on hand, and not following internal procedures for fund turnover during her absence. These omissions constituted a failure to observe the standard of care demanded of her position, making her liable for the resulting loss.