EN BANC
G.R. No. 143403 January 22, 2003
FILONILA O. CRUZ, petitioner,
vs.
HON. CELSO D. GANGAN, DIR. MARCELINO HANOPOL, AUDITOR GLENDA MANLAPAZ, AND THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
While we commend the Commission on Audit for its diligence in safeguarding State properties, we nonetheless rule that a government employee who has not been proven to be culpable or negligent should not be held accountable for the loss of a cellular phone stolen from her while she was riding the Light Railway Transit (LRT). On the other hand, the dogged persistence of petitioner in fighting for her rights, honor, respect and dignity has not been lost on this Court. She has been true to her calling as an educator and a role model for our young people.
The Case
For review on certiorari under Rule 64 is Decision No. 2000-1041 dated March 28, 2000, issued by the Commission on Audit (COA), requiring Dr. Filonila O. Cruz to pay the book value of a lost government-issued Nokia 909 analog cellular phone. The decretal portion of the Decision reads as follows:
"Premises considered, and conformably to the adverse recommendations of the Director, NGAO II and the Auditor, TESDA-NCR in the letter and 2nd Indorsement dated July 13, 1999 and February 26, 1999, respectively, it is regretted that the instant request for relief is DENIED for want of merit. This being so, the herein petitioner should be required to pay the book value of the lost government-issued cellular phone."2
The Facts
On Friday afternoon of January 15, 1999, petitioner went to the Regional Office of the Technological Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) in Taguig, Metro Manila for consultation with the regional director.3 After the meeting, petitioner went back to her official station in Caloocan City, where she was the then Camanava district director of the TESDA, by boarding the Light Railway Transit (LRT) from Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue to Monumento. On board the LRT, her handbag was slashed and its contents stolen by an unidentified person. Among the items taken from her were her wallet and the government-issued cellular phone, which is the subject of the instant case. That same day, she reported the incident to police authorities who immediately conducted an investigation. However, all efforts to locate the thief and to recover the phone proved futile.
Three days after, on January 18, 1999, petitioner reported the theft to the regional director of TESDA-NCR. She did so through a Memorandum, in which she requested relief from accountability of the subject property. In a 1st Indorsement dated January 19, 1999, the regional director, in turn, indorsed the request to the resident auditor.
Under a 2nd Indorsement dated February 26, 1999, the resident auditor4 denied the request of petitioner on the ground that the latter lacked the diligence required in the custody of government properties. Thus, petitioner was ordered to pay the purchase value of the cell phone (P3,988) and that of its case (P250), a total of P4,238. The auditor’s action was sustained by the director of the National Government Audit Office II (NGAO II). The matter was then elevated to the Commission on Audit.
Ruling of the Commission on Audit
On appeal, the COA found no sufficient justification to grant the request for relief from accountability. It explained as follows:
"x x x While it may be true that the loss of the cellular phone in question was due to robbery (bag slashing), this however, cannot be made as the basis in granting the herein request for relief from accountability since the accountable officer, Dr. Cruz, failed to exercise that degree of diligence required under the circumstances to prevent/avoid the loss. When Dr. Cruz opted to take the LRT which undeniably, was almost always packed and overcrowded and considering further the day and time she boarded said train which was at about 2:00 to 2:30 P.M. of Friday, she exposed herself to the danger and the possibility of losing things such as the subject cellular phone to pickpockets. As an accountable officer, she was under obligation to exercise proper degree of care and diligence in safeguarding the property, taking into account what a reasonable and prudent man would have done under the circumstances. Dr. Cruz could have reasonably foreseen the danger that would befall her and took precautions against its mischievous result. Therefore, having been remiss in her obligation in the keeping or use of the subject government issued cellular phone, she has to answer for its loss as required under Section 105 of PD 1445. Additionally, to be exempt from liability because of fortuitous event as invoked by petitioner Dr. Cruz has no bearing to the case at bar considering that Article 1174 of the New Civil Code which supports said contention applies only if the actor is free from any negligence or misconduct by which the loss/damage may have been occasioned. Further, in Nakpil vs. CA, 144 SCRA 596, one who creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability although an act of God may have intervened. Thus, there being a positive showing of negligence on the part of the petitioner in the keeping of the subject cellular phone, then, such negligence militates against the grant of herein request for relief."5
Hence, this Petition.6
Issues
In her Memorandum, petitioner faults the COA with the following alleged errors:
I.
"The Commission Proper committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in finding that petitioner failed to exercise that degree of diligence required to prevent the loss of the government-issued cellular phone when she opted to take the light railway transit (LRT) in going to her official station in CAMANAVA District, Caloocan City Hall, Caloocan City[; and]
II.
"The Commission Proper committed grave abuse of discretion when it applied the case of Nakpil vs. CA, 144 SCRA 596 and disregarded Article 1174 of the New Civil Code in denying petitioner’s request for relief from accountability[.]"7
In the main, the issues in this case are: (1) whether petitioner was negligent in the care of the government-issued cellular phone, and (2) whether she should be held accountable for its loss.
We note that in its Manifestation and Motion dated October 24, 2000, reiterated in a similar pleading dated March 28, 2001, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sided with petitioner and prayed for the granting of the Petition. Hence, the COA was herein represented by its general counsel, Atty. Santos M. Alquisalas.
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
First Issue:
Required Degree of Diligence
The crucial question to ask is whether petitioner should be deemed negligent when, on that fateful afternoon, she opted to board the LRT where the cellular phone was stolen.
We answer in the negative. Riding the LRT cannot per se be denounced as a negligent act; more so under the circumstances in this case, in which petitioner’s mode of transit was influenced by time and money considerations.
Petitioner boarded the LRT to be able to arrive in Caloocan in time for her 3:00 p.m. meeting. Any prudent or rational person under similar circumstances can reasonably be expected to do the same. Possession of a cellular phone would not and should not hinder one from boarding an LRT coach as petitioner did. After all, whether she took a bus or a jeepney, the risk of theft would have also been present. Because of her relatively low position and pay, she was not expected to have her own vehicle or to ride a taxicab. Neither had the government granted her the use of any vehicle.
"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent man and reasonable man would not do.8
"Negligence is want of care required by the circumstances.9
"The diligence with which the law requires the individual at all times to govern his conduct varies with the nature of the situation in which he is placed, and the importance of the act which he is to perform."10 (Emphasis supplied)
The Rules11 provide that property for official use and purpose shall be utilized with the diligence of a good father of a family. Extra-ordinary measures are not called for in taking care of a cellular phone while in transit. Placing it in a bag away from covetous eyes and holding on to that bag, as done by petitioner, is ordinarily sufficient care of a cellular phone while travelling on board the LRT. The records do not show any specific act of negligence on her part. It is a settled rule that negligence cannot be presumed;12 it has to be proven. In the absence of any shred of evidence thereof, respondents gravely abused their discretion in finding petitioner negligent.
Granting that the presence or the absence of negligence is a factual matter, the consistent ruling of this Court is that findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected, so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.13 But lacking support, the factual finding of the COA on the existence of negligence cannot stand on its own and is therefore not binding on the Court.
While we commend the Commission on Audit for its diligence in safeguarding State properties, we nonetheless hold that a government employee who has not been proven to be culpable or negligent should not be held accountable for the loss of a cellular phone, which was stolen from her while she was riding on the LRT.
Second Issue:
Accountability
The assailed COA Decision directly attributed the loss of the cellular phone to a "robbery (bag slashing)." However, it denies the request of petitioner for relief from accountability, because it found her to be negligent. Earlier, we have already ruled that the finding of negligence had no factual or legal basis and was therefore invalid. What now remains to be resolved is whether petitioner observed the proper procedure for notifying the government of the loss.
Within thirty days of the loss,14 petitioner applied for relief from accountability. We hold that such application be deemed as the notification of the loss of the subject cellular phone. She has also done her part in proving that the loss was due to theft or robbery. The resident auditor15 concerned and the COA itself have accepted that the robbery or theft had actually taken place. Necessarily, in the absence of evidence showing negligence on her part, credit for the loss of the cellular phone is proper under the law.16 It also stands to reason that P4,238 should now be refunded to her. That was the amount she had to pay on June 3, 1999, upon her retirement from government service at age 65.
Her dogged persistence in pursuing this appeal has not been lost on this Court. We agree that, in fighting for her rights, she must have spent more than the value of the lost cellular phone. Hence, we can only applaud her for being true to her calling as an educator and a role model for our young people. Honor, respect and dignity are the values she has pursued. May her tribe increase!
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Commission on Audit is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The request of Petitioner Filonila O. Cruz for relief from accountability for the lost Nokia 909 analog cellular phone is GRANTED, and the amount of P4,238 paid under Official Receipt No. 6606743 is ordered to be REFUNDED to her upon finality of this Decision. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., on leave.
Mendoza, J., in the result.
Footnotes
1 Signed by Hon. Celso D. Gangan (chairman), Hon. Raul C. Flores and Hon. Emmanuel M. Dalman (commissioners).
2 Assailed Decision, p. 3; rollo, p. 22.
3 Director IV Marcelino P. Hanapol Jr., one of herein respondents.
4 State Auditor III Glenda E. Manlapaz, one of herein respondents.
5 Assailed Decision, pp. 2-3; rollo, pp. 21-22.
6 This case was deemed submitted for resolution on April 30, 2001, upon receipt by this Court of respondents’ Memorandum, which was signed by Atty. Santos M. Alquizalas. Petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. Marilou O. Dela Cruz, was received by the Court on April 25, 2001.
7 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 6; rollo, p. 105.
8 McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 211 SCRA 517, July 16, 1992, per Davide, Jr., J.
9 Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 303, February 7, 1996, per Kapunan, J.
10 Sangco, Torts and Damages, Vol. 1, 1993 rev. ed. p. 5; citing US v. De los Reyes, 1 Phil. 375, 377, September 16, 1902.
11 §8, par. 3, Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
12 Francisco, Evidence, 1994 ed., p. 388.
13 Bulilan v. Commission on Audit, supra.
14 Assailed Decision; Excerpt of Documents and Summary of Events.
15 2nd Indorsement dated February 26, 1999, signed by State Auditor III Manlapaz.
16 PD 1445, Sec. 73. Credit for loss occurring in transit or due to casualty or force majeure.- (1) When a loss of government funds or property occurs while they are in transit or the loss is caused by fire, theft, or other casualty or force majeure, the officer accountable therefor or having custody thereof shall immediately notify the Commission or the auditor concerned and, within thirty days or such longer period as the Commission or auditor may in the particular case allow, shall present his application for relief, with the available supporting evidence. Whenever warranted by the evidence credit for the loss shall be allowed. x x x."
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
