G.R. No. L-84592 October 27, 1988
ESTHER E. CUERDO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Esther Cuerdo, a Market Supervisor I in Gingoog City, sought relief from accountability for the loss of her cash collection amounting to P13,888.65 and cash tickets worth P2,958.00. These items were destroyed by a fire that razed the Market Administration Office and neighboring stalls on August 1, 1986, at 12:45 p.m. Cuerdo claimed the loss was due to a fortuitous event, explaining that the money was not secured in the office safe because its key was missing and that the collection was due for remittance at 1:00 p.m. that same day, leaving her no time to retrieve the cash from her desk drawer when the fire erupted.
The Commission on Audit (COA), through its Regional Office, denied her request for relief, finding positive negligence on her part for failing to take necessary precautions to safeguard the government funds. This decision was affirmed by the COA Central Office. Cuerdo filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. She then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the COA disregarded due process by not conducting a hearing and that she should not be held liable for a loss caused by a calamitous fire.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the denial of the petitioner’s request for relief from accountability for the loss of government funds and cash tickets.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the COA decision. The Court ruled that the sole issue raised by the petitioner was factual—specifically, whether she was negligent—and such factual findings of administrative agencies are generally not reviewable by the Court on certiorari. The Court emphasized the policy of sustaining decisions of administrative authorities like the COA due to their presumed expertise in the laws they enforce. The legal presumption is that official duty has been duly performed, and courts will not interfere unless there is a clear showing of arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion.
The Court found no such abuse. The COA’s finding of negligence was supported by substantial evidence, namely, her failure to secure the funds properly despite knowing the safe was inaccessible. The Court also rejected the due process claim, holding that providing Cuerdo with the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration constituted sufficient compliance. Furthermore, since she did not raise the due process issue before the COA, she could not raise it for the first time on appeal. With no showing that the COA acted whimsically or capriciously, the Court upheld its factual determination and denied the petition.