Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 148 views

    Bintudan v. COA

    Uploaded by

    Dyords Tiglao
    As the guardian of public funds, the COA has broad powers to audit government accounts and define the scope of its audits. The Court will only intervene if the COA acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Here, the COA found the officer negligent based on an investigation and properly applied relevant laws. Its findings were supported by substantial evidence. The officer failed in her duty to safely keep public funds entrusted to her custody. The COA therefore correctly denied her request for relief from liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bintudan v. COA

    Uploaded by

    Dyords Tiglao
    148 views2 pages
    As the guardian of public funds, the COA has broad powers to audit government accounts and define the scope of its audits. The Court will only intervene if the COA acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Here, the COA found the officer negligent based on an investigation and properly applied relevant laws. Its findings were supported by substantial evidence. The officer failed in her duty to safely keep public funds entrusted to her custody. The COA therefore correctly denied her request for relief from liability.

    Original Title

    240. Bintudan v. COA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    As the guardian of public funds, the COA has broad powers to audit government accounts and define the scope of its audits. The Court will only intervene if the COA acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Here, the COA found the officer negligent based on an investigation and properly applied relevant laws. Its findings were supported by substantial evidence. The officer failed in her duty to safely keep public funds entrusted to her custody. The COA therefore correctly denied her request for relief from liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    148 views2 pages

    Bintudan v. COA

    Uploaded by

    Dyords Tiglao
    As the guardian of public funds, the COA has broad powers to audit government accounts and define the scope of its audits. The Court will only intervene if the COA acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Here, the COA found the officer negligent based on an investigation and properly applied relevant laws. Its findings were supported by substantial evidence. The officer failed in her duty to safely keep public funds entrusted to her custody. The COA therefore correctly denied her request for relief from liability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    240. Bintudan v.

    COA

    G.R. No. 211937; March 21, 2017

    Topic: Constitutional Commissions; Commission on Audit; Power and Duties

    Doctrine:

    The Constitution has made the COA "the guardian of public funds, vesting it with broad powers over all
    accounts pertaining to government revenue and expenditures and the uses of public funds and property,
    including the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques
    and methods for such review, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations." Only when
    the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
    lack or excess of jurisdiction, may the Court entertain and grant a petition for certiorari brought to assail
    its actions.

    Facts: Bintudan is a disbursing officer in DILG-CAR in Lagawe, Ifugao. Unidentified suspects gained
    access inside and robbed the DILG-CAR Provincial Office after forcibly destroying the windows and the
    steel grills. The safe/vault was opened with ease by the perpetrators, using the number combination that
    was posted on the door of the safe/vault.

    During the investigation, it was found out that Bintudan tolerated the posting of the number combination
    of the safety vault where the funds of the office in her custody were kept.

    Because of her negligence, COA Legal Services Sector (LSS) denied her request for relief from
    accountability for the loss of cash pertaining to her office. She appealed to the COA, Commission Proper,
    but was also denied.

    Hence, this petition for certiorari.

    Issue: Whether or not the recourse of the petitioner is correct. – NO.

    Ruling:

    The Constitution has made the COA "the guardian of public funds, vesting it with broad powers over all
    accounts pertaining to government revenue and expenditures and the uses of public funds and property,
    including the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques
    and methods for such review, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations." Only when
    the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
    lack or excess of jurisdiction, may this Court entertain and grant a petition for certiorari brought to assail
    its actions.

    Herein, however, the petition for review is premised on the supposed misappreciation of facts by the
    COA. A careful examination of the records indicates that the COA committed no grave abuse of
    discretion in issuing the assailed decision. The COA thereby simply served its constitutional mandate and
    justly applied the pe1tinent laws and rules. It relied on the findings of negligence against the petitioner
    based on the Audit Team Leader ATL' s investigation and inspection report on her handling of the funds.
    Such findings are to be respected because they were supported by substantial evidence.

    The following provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1 445 (Ordaining and Instituting a Government
    Auditing Code of the Philippines) are relevant herein:

    Section 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 Joss
    shall be allowed. An officer who foils to comply with this requirement shall not be relieved liability or
    allowed credit for any loss in the settlement of his accounts.

    The conclusion that the COA correctly denied the petitioner's request for relief from accountability is thus
    inescapable. Being an officer of the Government having custody of public funds, she was fully
    accountable for the safekeeping of the funds under her custody.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy