Due Process is Paramount in Administrative Liability Cases

Victor M. Barroso v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 253253, April 27, 2021

Imagine being held financially responsible for a crime you had no part in, simply because you were in a position of authority. This is the nightmare that Victor M. Barroso, President of Bukidnon State University, faced when the Commission on Audit (COA) held him liable for a theft he had no direct involvement in. The Supreme Court’s decision in his favor underscores the critical importance of due process in administrative proceedings, a principle that safeguards individuals from arbitrary decisions.

At the heart of this case is the theft of payroll money amounting to P574,215.27, which was snatched from an administrative officer as she walked back to the university. The COA initially held the officer, Evelyn S. Mag-abo, responsible for the loss, but later extended liability to Barroso and another university official, Wilma L. Gregory, citing negligence. The central legal question was whether Barroso’s right to due process was violated by the COA’s decision to hold him liable without giving him a chance to defend himself.

Legal Context: The Pillars of Due Process in Administrative Law

Due process is a cornerstone of Philippine legal system, ensuring fairness and justice in both judicial and administrative proceedings. In administrative cases, due process is defined by the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, which established seven cardinal requirements for a fair hearing. These include the right to be heard, the right to present evidence, and the necessity for decisions to be based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing.

Under the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), specifically Section 102(1) and Section 104 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, public officials can be held liable for negligence in the custody of government funds. However, this liability must be determined through a process that adheres to due process standards.

Consider a scenario where a local government official is accused of mismanaging public funds. If the official is not given the opportunity to defend themselves, any decision against them could be overturned on due process grounds, as was the case with Barroso.

The Journey of Victor M. Barroso’s Case

On March 17, 2005, Mag-abo was granted a cash advance to pay the salaries of BSU employees. On March 28, 2005, she went to encash the check but left it with the bank verifier due to a long queue. Upon returning to collect the money with other employees, they were robbed near a gas station. The COA audit team quickly pointed to Mag-abo’s negligence, and despite her appeals, her liability was affirmed by various COA bodies.

Surprisingly, in April 2015, the COA Proper extended the liability to Barroso and Gregory, citing their failure to provide security measures. Barroso, who was not involved in the initial proceedings, filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that he was deprived of due process. This motion was denied in January 2020, prompting Barroso to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the principle that due process cannot be merely an afterthought. As Justice Lazaro-Javier wrote, “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.”

The Court found that Barroso was never charged in the initial proceedings and was only brought in at a later stage without being given access to the evidence against him. This violated his right to a fair hearing, leading to the nullification of the COA’s decisions against him.

Practical Implications: Safeguarding Against Unfair Administrative Liability

This ruling serves as a reminder that administrative bodies must adhere strictly to due process. For public officials, it underscores the importance of being vigilant about their rights and ensuring they are included in any proceedings that could affect their liability.

Businesses and organizations handling government funds should implement robust internal controls and ensure that all employees understand the procedures for handling cash. In case of disputes or accusations, seeking legal counsel early can help navigate the complexities of administrative law and protect against unjust liability.

Key Lessons:

• Always ensure you are notified and involved in any administrative proceedings that could affect your liability.
• Request access to all evidence and documents used against you to mount a proper defense.
• Consider filing a motion for reconsideration if you believe your due process rights have been violated.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is due process in administrative proceedings?
Due process in administrative proceedings ensures that individuals are given a fair chance to be heard and defend themselves against accusations. It includes the right to present evidence, the right to a hearing, and the requirement that decisions be based on substantial evidence.

Can a public official be held liable for the actions of their subordinates?
Yes, under certain conditions, but the official must be given due process. The liability must be established through a fair and transparent process that allows the official to defend themselves.

What should I do if I am held liable by an administrative body without being involved in the proceedings?
File a motion for reconsideration, highlighting the violation of your due process rights. If the motion is denied, consider appealing to a higher court.

How can organizations protect themselves from similar situations?
Implement strict internal controls and procedures for handling government funds. Ensure all employees are trained on these procedures and that there is a clear protocol for reporting and addressing any incidents.

What are the consequences of a due process violation in administrative cases?
A due process violation can lead to the nullification of the administrative body’s decision. The affected party may be relieved of any imposed liability and can seek redress for any damages incurred.

ASG Law specializes in administrative law and due process issues. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.