This Supreme Court decision clarifies the responsibilities of public officials in managing government funds. The Court found that Rosita P. Siniclang, a former municipal treasurer, was liable for simple neglect of duty because she failed to adequately protect public funds entrusted to her care. Even though the funds were stolen, her negligence in not securing them properly made her accountable. This case underscores the importance of diligence and adherence to established procedures for all public officials handling government assets.

Unlocked Drawers and Lost Bonuses: When is a Public Official Liable for Stolen Funds?

The case revolves around Rosita P. Siniclang, the former Municipal Treasurer of San Emilio, Ilocos Sur. On December 23, 2013, she encashed checks for the Productivity Enhancement Incentive (PEI) bonus of municipal employees. Some employees couldn’t claim their bonuses that day, and instead of using a vault (which was defective), Siniclang placed the unclaimed money in cloth bags inside her office drawers. During the holidays, her office was burglarized, and a significant amount of money, including the unclaimed PEI bonuses, was stolen. This incident led to administrative complaints and legal battles concerning Siniclang’s accountability for the lost funds. The core legal question is whether Siniclang’s actions constituted negligence, making her liable for the loss of public funds, despite the robbery.

The legal framework for this case hinges on the principles of public accountability and the duty of care expected from government officials handling public funds. Presidential Decree No. 1445, also known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, is central to this framework. Specifically, Section 105 states:

SECTION 105. Measure of liability of Accountable Officers. –(1) Every officer accountable for government property shall be liable for its money value in case of improper or unauthorized use or misapplication thereof by himself or any person for whose acts he may be responsible. He shall likewise be liable for all losses, damages, or deterioration occasioned by negligence in the keeping or use of the property, whether or not it be at the time in his actual custody. (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.

This provision clearly establishes the liability of accountable officers for losses resulting from negligence, even if the funds are not in their direct custody at the time of the loss. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court examined whether Siniclang exhibited the necessary diligence in safeguarding the funds entrusted to her. The Court considered the fact that the office vault was defective, and Siniclang chose to store the money in an unlocked drawer. This decision was a critical point of contention. Furthermore, the Commission on Audit (COA) found that Siniclang had not taken sufficient steps to request a replacement or repair of the vault, further supporting the claim of negligence.

The Court also addressed the issue of forum shopping raised by Siniclang. She argued that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) had already ruled on a related administrative complaint, thus barring the Office of the Ombudsman from taking cognizance of the case. However, the Court clarified that the two cases involved different parties, causes of action, and reliefs sought. The CSC complaint focused on Siniclang’s alleged failure to remit the PEI bonuses, while the Ombudsman case concerned her negligence in the safekeeping of government funds. Therefore, the Court found no basis for the claim of forum shopping.

Another key aspect of the case involved the Office of the Ombudsman’s authority to intervene in proceedings where its decisions are under review. Siniclang argued that the Ombudsman should remain detached and impartial, similar to a judge. However, the Court, citing Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego, emphasized that the Ombudsman has a legal interest in defending its decisions and ensuring the accountability of public officers. This right to intervene is rooted in the Ombudsman’s constitutional mandate to protect the people and preserve the integrity of public service.

Regarding the preventive suspension order issued against Siniclang, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 grants the Ombudsman the power to preventively suspend public officials if there is strong evidence of guilt and the charges involve dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty. In Siniclang’s case, the Ombudsman relied on the COA’s finding of negligence as evidence of guilt and determined that her continued stay in office could prejudice the case. Therefore, the preventive suspension order was deemed valid. This approach contrasts with cases where the evidence of guilt is weak or the charges do not warrant such a measure.

In assessing Siniclang’s liability for simple neglect of duty, the Court reiterated the principle that negligence is a relative concept, depending on the circumstances and the required degree of care. As the municipal treasurer, Siniclang had a duty to exercise a high level of diligence in managing public funds. The Court found that she failed to meet this standard when she stored the money in an easily accessible drawer instead of a secure vault. This failure, though perhaps unintentional, constituted simple neglect of duty. In the case of Leano v. Domingo, the Supreme Court already emphasized that the safety of money cannot be ensured when it is deposited in enclosures other than the safety vault.

Finally, the Court upheld the COA’s decision denying Siniclang’s request for relief from money accountability. The Court’s power to review COA decisions is limited to instances of jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion. Since Siniclang failed to demonstrate such abuse, the Court deferred to the COA’s expertise in auditing government funds. The COA’s finding of negligence was supported by substantial evidence, including the Reinvestigative Report, which highlighted Siniclang’s failure to secure a new or repaired vault. Therefore, the Court affirmed the COA’s decision, holding Siniclang accountable for the lost funds. This ruling serves as a reminder to all public officials that they will be held responsible for losses resulting from their negligence, regardless of whether the loss was directly caused by their actions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Rosita Siniclang, as a former municipal treasurer, was liable for the loss of public funds due to negligence, even though the funds were stolen. The court examined whether her actions in securing the funds met the required standard of care.
What is simple neglect of duty?	Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness or indifference. It is considered a less grave offense under Civil Service rules.
What is the significance of Presidential Decree No. 1445 in this case?	Presidential Decree No. 1445, the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, establishes the liability of accountable officers for losses resulting from negligence in the keeping or use of government property or funds. Section 105 outlines these responsibilities.
What did the Commission on Audit (COA) decide?	The COA denied Rosita Siniclang’s request for relief from money accountability, holding her liable for the loss of the PEI bonuses funds due to her contributory negligence. The COA found that she failed to exercise the diligence required of her position as custodian of government funds.
Was Rosita Siniclang preventively suspended?	Yes, the Office of the Ombudsman placed Rosita Siniclang under preventive suspension for a period not exceeding three months without pay. The suspension was based on the Ombudsman’s assessment of strong evidence of guilt and the need to prevent her from influencing potential witnesses or tampering with records.
What is the Office of the Ombudsman’s role in this case?	The Office of the Ombudsman is responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases of corruption and misconduct by public officials. In this case, the Ombudsman investigated the administrative complaint against Siniclang and issued the preventive suspension order.
What does it mean to be an ‘accountable officer’?	An ‘accountable officer’ is a public official responsible for the custody and management of government property or funds. Accountable officers are liable for any losses, damages, or deterioration of these assets due to negligence.
Why was the argument of forum shopping rejected?	The argument of forum shopping was rejected because the complaints filed before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Ombudsman had different causes of action and parties involved. One case involved the loss of funds and negligence; the other failure to remit the said funds.
What factors did the Court consider in determining negligence?	The Court considered several factors, including the defective office vault, Siniclang’s failure to request a replacement or repair, and her decision to store the money in an easily accessible drawer. These factors led the Court to conclude that she failed to exercise the required diligence.

This case reinforces the high standard of care expected from public officials in managing government funds. It clarifies that negligence, even in the context of a robbery, can lead to personal liability for accountable officers. Public officials must prioritize the security and proper handling of public assets to avoid potential legal and financial consequences.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ROSITA P. SINICLANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 234766, October 18, 2022