G.R. No. 235764 , September 14, 2021
Rafael M. Crisol, Jr., Petitioner, vs. Commission on Audit, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rafael M. Crisol, Jr., Chief of the Cash Division, Bureau of Customs (BOC), challenges the Commission on Audit (COA) Decision and Resolution which disapproved his exclusion from liability for the unremitted collections of his subordinate, Special Collection Officer (SCO) Arnel Tabije, amounting to Php425,555.53. Tabije was designated as SCO in September 2010 but stopped reporting for work in December 2010. An audit revealed Tabije’s failure to deposit collections and turn over an auction fund passbook. After Tabije failed to respond to demands, the matter was referred to COA. COA issued a Notice of Charge holding Tabije, the head of office (Atty. Rogel Gatchalian), and petitioner liable. On appeal, the COA National Government Sector Cluster A excluded both Atty. Gatchalian and petitioner from liability. However, upon automatic review, the COA disapproved the exclusion only for petitioner, finding him jointly and solidarily liable with Tabije for failure to exercise due supervision, and directed the case to be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. During the pendency of this petition, Tabije settled the unremitted amount in full.

ISSUE

Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioner Rafael M. Crisol, Jr. civilly liable for the unremitted collections of his subordinate, Arnel Tabije.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing and setting aside the COA rulings insofar as they held petitioner civilly liable. The Court held that for a superior public officer to be civilly liable for acts done in the performance of official duties, there must be a clear showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence. Gross negligence requires a conscious indifference to consequences. The Court found that petitioner exercised the diligence of a good father of a family. Upon discovering Tabije’s irregularities, petitioner immediately reported them to his superior, conducted an initial audit, sent a demand letter to Tabije, and, upon instruction, referred the matter to COA for audit. These actions demonstrated reasonable supervision and a prompt response to prevent further loss. The Court distinguished this from a case where a superior’s inaction constituted gross negligence. Since there was no clear showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence on petitioner’s part, he cannot be held civilly liable under Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987. The fact that Tabije subsequently settled the amount did not render the case moot, as the issue of petitioner’s liability remained a justiciable controversy.