Hernandez v.

Chairman of the COA

179 SCRA 39 (November 6, 1989)

Facts:
The petitioner, Teodora M. Hernandez prays for relief from accountability over an amount
he lost due to a fortuitous event. He was thee officer-in-charge and special disbursing officer of
the Ternate Beach Project of the Philippine Tourism Authority and so traveled to the main office
of PTA in Manila on July 1, 1983. His plan as estimated was to encash the checks, one for the
salary of the laborers and one for project maintenance by 10 o’clock in the morning and travel
back to Tarnate and arrive there at about 2 o’clock in the afternoon. However, the checks were
cleared and encashed only at about 2 pm and he was left with a dilemma whether to travel back
with the money and arrive at wee hours in the evening in Tarnate or to travel home to Marilao,
Bulacan, which would be closer and then travel back to Tarnate the following day. He chose the
latter route however, aboard the jeep he was robbed off the money. He was able to catch up with
one of the robbers but the other was able to escape with the money.
On July 5 (the next working day) he filed relief and was indorsed by the General Manager
of PTA and the Corporate Auditor. The Regional Director of the COA NCR absolved Hernandez
of negligence, however Chairman Tantuico denied the request. This was denied on grounds that
negligence happened when he decided to take the cash home instead of going straight to Tarnate
which is the practice in cases like this. In defense, Hernandez said he chose to take the money
home because the travel back home is safer than traveling to Tarnate in the wee hours of the
evening, it was just so unfortunate that he was robbed. On questions why he could’ve just
encashed the checks later, he was thinking of traveling to Tarnate the following day instead of
encashing after the holiday so that the laborers get their salaries on time.
Issue:
Is the event considered a fortuitous event, relieving Hernandez of his liability?
Ruling:
The event is considered a fortuitous event hence relieving Hernandez of his liability. The
court ruled that to impose such liability upon him would be to read the law too sternly when it
should be softened by the proven facts. His decision seemed logical at the time and was the one
that could be expected of a reasonable and prudent person.
This decision of traveling to Tarnate on a non-working day shows that he was moved by
the best of motives, commended for being a modest employee who realized the great discomfort
it would cause the laborers dependent on their wages for their sustenance.