RULE 64/G.R. No. 209714 RAPHAEL C. FONTANILLA,
Petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER PROPER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent. 2016
G.R. No. 209714 June 21, 2016
Facts:
Dr.
Fontanilla is the Schools Division Superintendent of the Department of
Education (DepEd) in South Cotobato. Under his supervision was Ms.
Luna V. Falcis, the Division's designated Special Disbursing Officer (Clerk
II). Falcis had the duty, among others, to encash checks for the DepEd's
expenses and activities.
Falcis,
together with a co-worker, went to the Land Bank of the Philippines, Koronadal
City Branch, to encash a check for Php 313,024.50. After completing the
transaction, they took a public utility tricycle in going back to their office.
On their way, three men blocked their path and at gunpoint grabbed the envelope
containing the money. The robbers then sped away in a motorcycle.
Falcis reported the incident to the police. After the
robbery was reported to the COA Resident Auditor of the DepEd South Cotabato
Division, Falcis filed with the COA Audit Team Leader (ATL) a
request for relief from money accountability (request for relief).
The ATL
investigated the incident and found that Falcis failed to exert extra care and
due diligence in handling the encashment; she did not request a security escort
and the use of a government vehicle. The ATL forwarded its findings to the
Regional Legal and Adjudication Office (COA Regional Office) for further
study.
The COA Regional Office
concurred with the ATL findings and elevated Falcis's request for relief to the
Adjudication and Settlement Board (ASE) of the COA National Office,
for final disposition.
The ASB denied Falcis's
request for relief based on the finding that she had been negligent, thus,
liable for the amount of money lost.
The ASB cited Section 105
(2) of Presidential Decree No. 1445 or the Government Auditing Code of the
Philippines (Audit Code), which states:
Section 105. Measure of
liability of accountable officers.
(2) Every officer
accountable for government funds shall be liable for all losses resulting from
the unlawful deposit, use, or application thereof and for all losses
attributable to negligence in the keeping of the funds.
The ASB also ruled that Dr.
Fontanilla is jointly and solidarily liable with Falcis under Section 104 of
the Audit Code which makes the head of the agency accountable because he did
not exert the required diligence
Falcis moved for the
reconsideration of the ruling. Dr. Fontanilla, on the other hand, moved for
intervention, exclusion, and reconsideration.
The COA treated Dr.
Fontanilla's motion for intervention, exclusion, and reconsideration as an
appeal from the ASB's decision. The COA held that Dr. Fontanilla had not been
denied administrative due process. On the issue of negligence, the COA held
that Dr. Fontanilla failed to observe the diligence of a good father of a
family. He is presumed to be knowledgeable of the transactions made by his
subordinates. COA denied the appeal.
Dr. Fontanilla now assails
the COA decision on the sole ground that he has been denied due process. He
explains that in the entire length of the proceedings, he was not given the opportunity
to explain his side.
From the ASB decision, he
filed his motion for intervention (to allow him to participate in the
proceedings), for exclusion (to forestall the imposition of liability
until he is allowed to defend himself), and for reconsideration (of
the ASB - COA decisions for denial of due process).
ISSUES:
1. Did Dr. Fontanilla avail of the wrong remedy? If so,
is there basis to liberally apply the Rules of Court?
2. Was Dr. Fontanilla denied due process?
Ruling:
YES.
Dr. Fontanilla availed the wrong remedy.
Dr. Fontanilla did not use
the correct remedy when he filed an appeal by certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court.
Article IX-A, Section 7 of
the Constitution provides that decisions, orders, or rulings of the COA may be
brought to this Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party. This is
echoed by Section 2, Rule 64, of the Rules of Court, which states that a
judgment or final order or resolution of the COA may be brought by the
aggrieved party to this Court on certiorari under Rule 65.
Based on these rules, the SC
could have dismissed the petition outright. The gravity, however, of Dr.
Fontanilla's claim of violation of his right to due process compelled the SC to
examine the merit of his petition; the Court itself would compound the
violation of Dr. Fontanilla's right to due process if indeed such violation
took place and the SC would brush it aside because of a technical procedural
reason. Under the scales of justice, technical procedural rules pale in
comparison and are outweighed by substantive violations affecting the bill of
rights.
The SC stress that the
Constitution and the Rules of Court limit the permissible scope of inquiry in
Rules 64 and 65 certiorari petitions only to errors of
jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Hence, unless tainted
with grave abuse of discretion, the COA's simple errors of judgment cannot be
reviewed even by this Court.
The
COA gravely abused its discretion when it denied Dr.Fontanilla of due process.
Dr. Fontanilla maintains
that his right to due process was violated. The COA counters that his motion
for intervention, exclusion, and reconsideration effectively cured the defect
in the proceedings.
While we have ruled in the
past that the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect in
procedural due process because the process of reconsideration is itself an
opportunity to be heard, this ruling does not embody an absolute rule that
applies in all circumstances. The mere filing of a motion for
reconsideration cannot cure the due process defect, especially if the motion
was filed precisely to raise the issue of violation of the right to due process
and the lack of opportunity to be heard on the merits remained.
In the present case, not
only did the COA deny Dr. Fontanilla's plea to be heard, it proceeded to
confirm his liability on reconsideration without hearing his possible defense
or defenses.
Petition is Granted and set
aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment