Case Digest: OROCIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

OROCIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

FACTS

On May 25, 1982 an accident occurred at the Malaya Thermal Plant of the National Power Corporation (NPC). Based on the accident report, tube leaks were confirmed at 2:30 am. The tubes were drained and prepared for repair by maintenance personnel. By 8:45 am the system was declared safe for repair. From that time on until 11:10 work ensued, until the plug from the leaking tube gave way. The leaking tube spew hot steam and water, injuring two personnel making the repairs. One of the men injured was a contractual janitor employed by OP Landrito’s General Services (OPLGS), NPC’s janitorial contractor. His hospitalization expenses amounted to P50,802.26. NPC initially advanced the amount, but later on reimbursed itself by deducting the amount, on a staggered basis, from OPLGS’s billings to NPC. Subsequently OPLGS requested for a refund of the said amount. NPC’s Legal Services Division Chief, Orocio, found negligence on their part (quasi-delict), he therefore recommended the reimbursement to OPLGS of the said amount. But later on it was disallowed by the COA. COA made certain officers of NPC liable for the disallowance (approving authority, chief accountant, etc), including Orocio.

ISSUE

Is Orocio personally liable for the disallowance considering that he was merely performing his function? 

HELD

NO. Under Sec 103 of the Gov’t Auditing Code, expenditures of gov’t funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found directly responsible therefore. In the instant case, though it was petitioner who rendered the opinion relied upon for the disbursement, it cannot be said that he was directly responsible therefore. His was only a legal opinion which the governing board of the NPC or any of its authorized officials could adopt or reject. The Court added that although Orocio was performing his official functions only, he could still be made liable if it was found that he acted with malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority. But whether petitioner acted in such way could only be determined through a proper hearing to be conducted by the COA. Since it was not done, it will be in violation of Orocio’s right to due process if he was made liable therefore.