CASE DIGEST
AMPATUAN V. COMMISSION
ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 252007,
[December 7, 2021]
EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V
Powers of
COA;Commission on Audit Notice of Disallowances; petition for Review; Liability of Public Officers
Mere position of a superior public
officer is insufficient to establish civil liability for disallowed
expenditures. Holding a public officer personally liable for civil liability
for disallowances requires a clear showing of bad faith, malice, or gross
negligence, which was absent in this case.
The case pertains to a Petition for
Certiorari filed by Zaldy Uy Ampatuan challenging the Commission on Audit's
(COA) Resolution dated August 15, 2019. The COA conducted a special audit of
the Office of the Regional Governor in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
for the period of January 2008 to September 2009. Following the audit, Notice
of Disallowance (ND) No. ORG-12-002-MDS/LF (08 & 09) was issued,
disallowing disbursements totaling ₱79,162,435.00. The petitioner, who was the
Regional Governor, was held personally liable for his alleged failure to
monitor the transactions. Petitioner was faulted for his alleged failure to
monitor the acts of his subordinates who perpetrated the unlawful
disbursements. Plainly, civil liability was imposed upon petitioner for his
alleged failure to ensure that all resources of the government are managed,
expended or utilized in accordance with law and regulations, and safeguarded
against loss or wastage through illegal or improper disposition.
Whether or not there is legal basis for
holding a public officer personally liable for disallowed expenditures.
NO. The primary legal basis for the ruling lies in the requirement that civil liability for disallowed expenditures necessitates a clear showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence on the part of the public officer. Under the legal provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987, it explicitly state that expenditures of government funds in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found directly liable. Solidary liability for illegal expenditures falls on the official or employee authorizing or making the payment, or taking part therein, and every person receiving such payment.
In this case, the Court finds no legal
and evidentiary bases to support a finding of liability in the Notice of
Disallowances (ND) against petitioner. Verily, the sole proposition that an
official is the head of the audited agency does not suffice to hold him personally
liable for disallowances on account of his subordinate's actions. Liability
depends upon the wrong committed and not solely by reason of being the head of
an agency. The court emphasized that the mere position of the public officer is
insufficient to establish personal liability for Notice of Disallowances. An officer's
liability depends on the wrong committed and not solely on their position. It
is important therefore, to establish direct participation and knowledge of the
public officer in the disallowed transaction to impute liability – which absent
in this case.
Hence the court granted the petition,
setting aside the COA's Resolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment