G.R. No. 211937 . March 21, 2017. ROSEMARIE B. BINTUDAN, Petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
FACTS

Petitioner Rosemarie B. Bintudan was the Disbursing Officer II of the DILG-CAR Provincial Office in Lagawe, Ifugao. On March 16, 2005, unidentified suspects robbed the office, forcibly entering and destroying windows and grills. They stole ₱114,907.30 from a safety vault. The police and the COA Audit Team Leader (ATL) confirmed the robbery. The ATL’s investigation revealed critical findings: the vault was opened easily because its number combination was posted on the vault door, and there was an early withdrawal of salary funds despite the proximate location of the depository bank.
Bintudan requested relief from accountability. The COA’s Legal and Adjudication Office-National (LAO-N) denied her request, citing negligence. This was affirmed by the COA Legal Services Sector and later by the COA Commission Proper. Bintudan argued she was not personally responsible for posting the combination, noting it was an office practice initiated after a prior disbursing officer’s death to ensure continuity. She also contended the early withdrawal followed an office agreement and that security personnel were primarily responsible for protection.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Audit erred in finding petitioner guilty of negligence and denying her request for relief from accountability for the lost cash.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. Initially, the Court noted the improper remedy; a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, is the correct mode to assail a COA decision. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to resolve the substantive issue.
The Court upheld the COA’s finding of negligence. As an accountable officer, Bintudan had the duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in safeguarding government funds under her custody. Her failure to remove the visibly posted combination on the vault door constituted a clear breach of this duty. This act of tolerating the posting made the funds easily accessible, directly enabling the robbery. The Court emphasized that the loss was not due to force but to this negligence, which defeated the very purpose of the vault’s security.
The Court rejected her defenses. Even if she did not personally post the combination, her acquiescence and failure to remove it demonstrated a lack of due care. Her claim that the robbery might still have occurred was irrelevant, as her negligence was a proximate cause of the loss. The practice of early withdrawal, while cited, was not the primary ground for liability; the central failing was the compromised vault security. Consequently, she was not entitled to relief from accountability under auditing rules, as she failed to prove the loss occurred without her fault or negligence. The COA decision was affirmed.