G.R. No. 154665 ; February 10, 2006
MANUEL LEYCANO, JR., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel Leycano, Jr., the Provincial Treasurer of Oriental Mindoro and a member of the Provincial School Board (PSB), was appointed to the PSB Inspectorate Team. In 1995, checks were issued to contractors for various public school projects funded by the Special Education Fund (SEF). A subsequent special audit by the COA found deficiencies in these projects. The COA issued Notices of Disallowance holding petitioner, among others, liable for signing Certificates of Inspection that falsely attested to the projects’ 100% completion, leading to the improper release of funds.
Petitioner appealed to the COA, arguing he should be excluded from liability. The Regional Director initially modified the findings, excluding petitioner based on a joint certification that the deficiencies had been corrected. However, upon review and a re-inspection that still found substantial deficiencies, the COA Commission Proper, by its Decision, reinstated petitioner’s liability and denied his appeal, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner solidarily liable for the disallowed disbursements.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the COA Decision. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s core defense was that his Inspectorate Team had only monitoring functions, with strict supervision belonging to the Provincial Engineering Office. This argument was rejected. The legal logic is twofold. First, petitioner’s reliance on a 1996 PSB Resolution to define his 1995 duties was misplaced, as it was enacted after the transactions. Second, and more critically, by signing the Certificate of Inspection, petitioner performed a crucial, non-ministerial act that attested to factual completion, a precondition for payment. His signature gave the false impression of full compliance, directly facilitating the irregular disbursement.
The Court emphasized that a public officer’s duty is not discharged by mere passive reliance on the work of others when one attests to a critical fact. Petitioner, as Provincial Treasurer and a PSB member, had a heightened responsibility to ensure the propriety of expenditures. His certification was a direct cause of the loss of public funds. Consequently, the COA correctly applied the rule on solidary liability for officials who participated in or facilitated an illegal transaction. Its factual findings on the existence of deficiencies were conclusive and supported by substantial evidence.