Common Violations of Treasurers and Assistant Treasurers

27
COMMON VIOLATIONS OF
TREASURERS AND ASSISTANT
TREASURERS (CASES)
July 2015 to December 2017

COMMON VIOLATIONS OF TREASURERS AND ASSISTANT
TREASURERS
GOVERNMENT REFORM PROCUREMENT ACT (R.A. No. 9184)
CASE NO. 1
FACTS:
The complaint was filed by FIO relative to the purchase of motor vehicles and
heavy equipment of the municipality. FIO avers that respondents failed to comply
with the procurement process as mandated in RA 9184, which includes (1) failure
to comply with advertising requirement, (2) the brand “KIA Pregio” was indicated in
the purchase request and (3) BAC specified the brand name “Mitsubishi Pajero
2800 M-2800” in the invitation to Bid, thereby causing injury to the government in
the amount of P9,496,600.00. MT is a BAC Member.
90
TREASURERS
ISSUE:
Whether respondents shall be held administratively liable.
RULING:
Yes, although the BAC complied with the requirements of notice and publication,
the BAC reference to brand names such as “Komatsu, Isuzu, Kawasaki” and
Mitsubishi Pajero 2800 M2800 in the Invitation to Bid was in violation of Sec. 18 of
RA 9184.
By referring to brand names, they limited the area of competition and deprived
suppliers of the opportunity to participate in the bidding. Their act defeated the
open and competitive character of the bidding process and prevented the
municipality from accepting other bids. There is likewise no evidence that the
specification of said brands has any rational or functional purpose.
(Suspension of 1month from the service)

91
TREASURERS
CASE NO. 2
FACTS:
Complainant alleged irregularities in the utilization of the Priority Development
Assistant Fund (PDAF) of a Congresswoman. The Municipality purchased 122
units of jetmatic pumps and reading eyeglasses which was funded from the
said PDAF. Said procurements were done through shopping and a single
supplier emerged as winner during canvass after other suppliers quoted prices
exceeding the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC). Complainant alleged
that the BAC gave unwarranted benefits to the winning suppliers as it was
pitted against suppliers who could not compete with the price it offered. MT
was found to have participated in certifying that the supporting documents
were complete, as a Municipal Accountant at that time.
92
TREASURERS
ISSUE:
Whether respondents may be held administratively liable for alleged splitting
of orders and for giving unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to the
winning supplier without the conduct of public bidding.
RULING:
Respondent BAC Members failed to conduct a competitive bidding for said
procurement, in violation of Section 10 of RA 9184, and MT, former
accountant, certified in the Disbursement Vouchers that supporting
documents are complete when no documents indicating that a public bidding
was made were submitted. Nothing in the record or respondent’s pleading
that the purchase of said items was due to an unforeseen contingency and/or
ordinary or regular office supplies. Thus, said procurement should have been
subject to competitive bidding.
93
TREASURERS
Respondents deprived the government of the opportunity to obtain cheaper

offers from suppliers who could have been informed of the procurements
through advertisement or publication and who, as a consequence, may be
enticed to submit their bids.
(Suspension of four (4) months without pay)
94
TREASURERS
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184
CASE NO. 3
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that respondents, as members of the BAC, conspired to

award the contract for the procurement of 65hp tractor to the supplier and
accepting the said farm tractor despite irregularities in the conduct of bidding.
The BAC (1) failed to immediately declare supplier as “ineligible” or “failed”
for its failure to include all the required documentary requirements in the first
envelope, (2) BAC failed to seal supplier’s second envelope and entrusted it
to the custody of the AMT, who is not a BAC member, (3) BAC immediately
recommended the award to supplier without conducting post qualification as
required under Sec 34.1 of RA9184, and (4) BAC declared supplier as the
winning bidder
95
TREASURERS
even if it failed to comply with the specification required by the municipality.
MT averred that she did not participate in the bidding process and that she
only signed the DV to attest the availability of funds and the completeness of
the propriety of the supporting documents for the procurement of the farm
tractors. She further denied conspiring with co-respondents for signing the
check in favor of the supplier.
ISSUE:
Whether MT shall be held administratively liable.
96
TREASURERS
RULING:
Respondents blatantly violated and Sec 34.1 of RA 9184 and Section 30.3 of
its IRR when they entrusted the supplier’s second envelope to AMT who is
not a BAC member and immediately declared the supplier as the winning
bidder sans conducting a post qualification. MTs connivance with the above-
mentioned respondents was manifested by her act of signing the DV which
paved the irregular release of funds in favour of the supplier.
(Dismissal from the Service)
97
TREASURERS
CASE NO. 4
FACTS:
Provincial Government, through the BAC, purchased 3 units of motor
vehicles through direct contracting instead of competitive bidding as the
mode of procurement. PT is a BAC Member. Per COA AOM, the resort to
direct contracting was not justified considering that there was no showing
that (1) the motor vehicles were sold by an exclusive dealer or manufacturer
which does not have sub-dealers selling at lower-prices; and (2) no suitable
substitute can be obtained at more advantageous terms to the government.
The PR even indicated “Direct Purchase to supplier” showing apparent
preference to the supplier and in violation of Sec. 18 of the IRR of RA 9184.
PT and other respondents argue that the lack of public bidding alone does
not automatically equate to manifest gross disadvantage to the government.
98
TREASURERS
They aver that even granting that there was no public bidding, such does not
give rise to criminal and administrative liabilities due to the absence of
evidence of overpricing, undue injury on the part of the government or
misappropriation of public funds.
ISSUE:
Whether Respondents are administratively liable in resorting to Direct
Contracting as the mode of procurement.
RULING:
Yes, PT and other respondents shall be administratively liable. Section 50 (c)
of RA 9184, which is being invoked by respondents, is explicit that Direct
Contracting could be resorted with respect to (1) goods sold by an exclusive
dealer or manufacturer, (2) which does not have sub-dealers selling at lower
99
TREASURERS
prices and (3) for which no suitable substitute can be obtained at more
advantageous terms to the government. While it may be true that the
questioned vehicles could only be bought in Mindanao from its exclusive
distributor, the supplier, the third condition was not met. Hence, the lawful
mode of procurement should have been competitive bidding.
On the imposable penalty against PT, the Office of the Ombudsman took
cognizance of her continued long years in service which served as a
mitigating circumstance. Hence, her supposed penalty of dismissal from the
service is reduced to one (1) year suspension without pay.
100
TREASURERS
Note: The Office of the Ombudsman overturned their decision and

exonerated PT and other respondents from their penalty. The OMB
considered the defense of PT and other respondents that there was no
suitable substitute vehicles that could be obtained at more advantageous
terms to the government, considering that the other vehicle dealers is
situated in the City which is around 4 to 6 hours away round trip to the
Provincial Government.
101
TREASURERS
CASE NO. 4
FACTS:
The case stemmed from the alleged irregular purchase of real property for the
purpose of expanding the municipal cemetery. The purchase of the Lot was
supported by DV and Check was signed by MT. Field Investigation Office (FIO)
alleged that the purchase of the questioned lot is irregular because (1) it was
overpriced, (2) check was not issued and paid to the owners of the lot but to a
different payee, (3) no proof that receiver was authorized by the payee to receive
payment, (4) purchase was not supported by an ordinance from the SB,
authorizing the purchase of the said lot, and (5) no proof that the purchase was
included in the APP.
ISSUE:
Whether respondents shall be held administratively liable on the purchase of the
said lot.
102
TREASURERS
RULING:
Yes, although FIO failed to establish the said lot was overpriced and that
records show proof that the payee was authorized by owners to receive
payment, respondents shall still be administratively liable for purchasing the
said lot without prior authorization from the SB thru an ordinance. The said
purchase caused undue injury to the Government. In the absence of prior
authority from the SB, Mayor and MT exercised their authority in identifying
the project to be funded by the P500,000.00 budget for the expansion of the
municipal cemetery, and implemented the same without complying with the
stringent requirements of public hearing and deliberation in the SB.
103
TREASURERS
COA CIRCULARS AND NGAS FOR LGUS
CASE NO. 5
FACTS:
It was alleged that Respondent failed to liquidate his cash advances for
traveling expenses in the total amount of Php 78, 030.00 accumulated from
the years 2009 to 2011, as shown in the certificate issued by the Municipal
Accountant on 29 July 2015. Respondent in his defense claimed that he had
liquidated the amount of Php 10, 569.20 from the total amount (Php 78,
030.00) in 2015, and subsequently paid its remaining balance Php 67,
460.80 on 20 April 2016.
ISSUE:
Whether there is substantial evidence to hold respondent liable for
Misconduct and/or Neglect of Duty for allegedly failing to liquidate his cash
advance in the total amount of Php 78,030.00 incurred in 2009-2011.
104
TREASURERS
RULING:
Yes. The Office finds substantial evidence to hold respondent liable only for
Neglect of Duty.
Under Section 5 of Commission on Audit (COA) Circular 97-002 provides that

the cash advance for official travels should have been with approved travel
order and an itinerary of travel, and its liquidation must be effected strictly
within 60 days after return to the Philippines in the case of foreign travel or
within 30 days after returning to one's permanent official station in the case of
local travel, as provided in E.O. 248 and that all cash advances shall be
fullyliquidated at the end of each year.
105
TREASURERS
Respondent’s defenses that he liquidated the amount of Php 10, 569.20 from
the total amount (Php 78, 030.00) in 2015, and that he paid its remaining
balance Php 67, 460.80 on 20 April 2016, are untenable. The above
provision of the COA Circular clearly shows that respondent had, at the most,
until the end of the years 2009, 2010, and 2011 to liquidate all his cash
advances pertaining to said years.
In view of the foregoing, the act of respondent’s failure to liquidate his cash
advances within the prescribed period constitutes a violation on said circular,
thus, rendering him guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty.
106
TREASURERS
CASE NO. 6
FACTS:
Complainants (Vice Mayor and SB Members) alleged that MT had
undeposited cash in vault in the amount of P3,020,940.30. Consequently,
they informed respondent of his failure to deposit his collection thru letters.
However, MT still failed to deposit said accumulated amount in his
possession. MT was again informed by COA thru an AOM on his
undeposited cash in vault. However, MT did not do anything about said
report. The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) issued an Order directing MT to
file his counter-affidavit. A return of service stated that MT is not in the
municipality and respondent’s brother refused to receive said order in his
behalf. Several attempts was done by the OMB to serve the copy of said
order to respondents but to no avail. The case was submitted for resolution
on the basis of evidence on records.
107
TREASURERS
ISSUE:
Whether MT shall beheld administratively liable.
RULING:
Yes, scrutiny of the records clearly showed that MT failed to deposit
collections on time to authorized depository banks as required under Sec. 32
of NGAS. In fact, his attention was called thru several letters but he failed to
give an explanation why he failed to deposit said collection. Such failure
constitutes Simple Neglect of Duty which is the failure to give proper
attention to the task expected of an employee resulting from either
carelessness or indifference or signifies a disregard of duty resulting from
carelessness or indifference.
(Suspension of 6 months from the service)

108
TREASURERS
CASE NO. 7
FACTS:
The Municipality purchased a parcel of land from the private complainant
amounting to P1,500,000.00 and released P800,00.00 to the Complainant
Vice Mayor as advance payment of the said lot. Vice Mayor alleges that the
DV is a falsified document because the signature appearing on the said
document is not his. Private complainant also alleged that the DV and Deed
was spurious and denied executing and signing the Deed.
ISSUE:
Whether MT shall be administratively liable.
109
TREASURERS
RULING:
Yes, MT violated Sec. 42 of the NGAS for LGUs. Records show that the
signatures on the DV and the dorsal portion of the check differ from the
signatures of the private complainant in her IDs. MT was remiss in the
performance of her duties, had she performed her duties with care and
circumspection, the unauthorized check releases would have been averted.
She not only failed to perform her duties with care and circumspection; she
deliberately violated applicable law and regulations to facilitate the release of
checks.
110
TREASURERS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (R.A. NO. 7160)
CASE NO. 8
FACTS:
SB passed Resolution No. 8 authorizing respondent Mayor to apply for a
term loan with any bank to fund the construction of a 28-kilometer stretch of
farm-to-market road in the municipality. Thereafter, the mayor applied for a
term loan with the bank. The bank approved the municipality’s loan for a 10-
Year Term in the amount of P30 million on the condition, among others, that
the municipality would execute a Deed of Assignment covering portion of its
IRA and other revenue equivalent as security for the payment of the monthly
amortization until the loan is paid in full, the Mayor conformed to the said
conditions.
The municipality initially complied with its obligation to pay the monthly
amortization, but started defaulting on its payment in September 2011.
111
TREASURERS
Demand letters were sent for payment of the unpaid monthly amortization
and the entire loan balance respectively, which became due and demandable
owing to the default. Respondent mayor requested for loan restructuring.
A complaint was filed as the municipality remained in default of its loan

obligations. The complainant averred that respondent failed to ensure that
the municipality’s funds are fully and timely applied to the payment of its
expenses and settlement of its obligations in accordance with law or
municipal ordinance, and that respondent Treasurer renege in her duty to
advise and prod respondent to perform the necessary actions to effect the
payment of the loan amortizations to the bank. Their alleged failure to
exercise the degree of professionalism and skill required of their office had
resulted in the municipality being in default on its payment of the loan
amortizations to PPSBI.
112
TREASURERS
ISSUE:
Whether MT is administratively liable for his failure to perform his duty to
ensure the settlement of the municipality’s financial obligations.
HELD:
Respondent Treasurer failed to refute the charge that she did not give advice
to respondent mayor on complying with the municipality’s loan obligations
and on the repercussions of failing to meet them. This omission is a violation
of her sworn duty as Municipal Treasurer to advise the Mayor regarding
disposition of local government funds, and on such other matters relative to
public finance, as mandated under Section 470 (d) (1) of RA 7160.
There is, however, no fault or negligence attributable to respondent Treasurer

with respect to her duty to take custody of and exercise proper management
113
TREASURERS
of the funds of the local government, in this case. There was no evidence
showing that she took control of the funds allocated for the payment of the
loan amortizations. She also had no obligation under the loan terms and
conditions in the debit of the funds and the subsequent credit thereof to
bank’s account.
In sum, respondent Treasurer is only liable for Simple neglect of Duty, as she
fell short of exerting the reasonable diligence required of her office in seeing
to it that the municipal mayor is properly advised on the disposition of local
government funds and other matters involving public finance.
(Suspension without pay for one month and one day.)
114
TREASURERS
CASE NO. 9
FACTS:
OIC Municipal Treasurer was charged for Neglect of Duty filed by the
Ombudsman-Mindanao. It was alleged that OIC MT have pre signed checks
that were payable to “A”, who is an accounting clerk. It was averred that the
latter misappropriated the the funds and cashed the amount of Php
310,000.00 favorable to her and another 1,400 was negotiated by her to a
business establishment. It was discovered that Respondent had been pre-
signing checks whenever he's on official business. He is adamant, however,
that he did not authorize the issuance of subject checks.
ISSUE:
whether the pre signing of checks by respondent tantamount to neglect of
duty
115
TREASURERS
Held:
The office of the Ombudsman finds substantial evidence to hold OIC
MT liable for some neglect of duty. As an OIC municipal treasurer, he
has the responsibility to ensure that precautionary measures are in
place to prevent unissued checks of the municipality from falling to
the hands of another, especially if he had pre-signed them. His
negligence enabled someone to misappropriate the total amount of
311,400.00
(Suspension for Three (3) Months without pay)
116
TREASURERS
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019)
CASE NO. 10
FACTS:
MT approved the use of the municipality’s “Trust Fund” derived from the
tobacco excise taxes to finance regular operations of the municipality.
Likewise, said fund was used for the procurement of ten “reconditioned”
multi-cab vehicles and payment for meals and snacks during the oath taking
of newly elected barangay and SK chairpersons.
ISSUE:
Whether substantial evidence exists to hold respondents liable for
administrative charges.
117
TREASURERS
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019)
RULING:
Yes MT’s defense that he and the accountant referred to letters from their
Congressional Representative supposedly giving the municipal government
blanket authority to apply the fund to any purpose it deemed fit. It is
unwarranted as said letters gave no authority. The authority to utilize the
Tobacco Fund was limited to specifically indicated projects consistent with
the intention of RA 8240. Thus, respondent’s disgression of said funds
amounted to grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of service.
118
TREASURERS
CASH SHORTAGE
CASE NO. 11
FACTS:
On 06 September 2013, the auditors conducted an examination on the Cash
and Accounts of respondent, which revealed cash short of P3,833,514.60.
Consequently, they sent demand letters to produce the missing funds and to
explain in writing how the shortage came about, but she failed to explain the
shortage and produce the amount.
ISSUE: Whether there is substantial evidence to hold respondent guilty of

serious dishonesty and grave misconduct.
119
TREASURERS
CASH SHORTAGE
HELD:
The Office Rules in the affirmative. Section 3 of the Rules of Administrative
Offenses of Dishonesty provides that a dishonest act would constitute the
offense of Serious Dishonesty if attended by any of the following
circumstances, xxx (3) Where the respondent is an accountable officer, the
dishonest act directly involves property, accountable forms or money for
which he is directly accountable and the respondent shows an intent to
commit material gain, graft and corruption.
Undeniably, respondent failed to rebut the legal presumption that she

misappropriated the said P3,833,514.60, and used the same for her personal
use. It involves money for which she is directly accountable.

120
TREASURERS
CASH SHORTAGE
CASE NO. 13
FACTS:
Complainant alleges that respondent incurred a total cash shortage of
P1,263,445.36 and was only able to restitute the amount of P124,782.44
leaving a balance of P1,138,662.92.
ISSUE:
Whether there is substantial proof to hold respondent administratively liable
for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty on account of the cash
shortages he incurred.
121
TREASURERS
CASH SHORTAGE
HELD:
The failure of the accountable officer to account for the shortage of funds he
was handling and to turn over the money deposited with him and to explain
and present evidence thereon constitutes gross neglect of duty, dishonesty,
grave misconduct, and malversation which all carry a penalty of dismissal
even for the first offense. To be held administratively liable for malversation,
no evidence of personal misappropriation of the missing funds is needed.
That there was shortage of funds and respondent’s failure to satisfactorily
explain the same would suffice.
Respondent was grossly negligent of his administrative function as

designated Municipal Treasurer. He was remiss of his duty to fully account
for more than a million pesos of public funds that were in his custody, for
which he is held liable for serious neglect of duty, which is defined as the
122
TREASURERS
CASH SHORTAGE
failure of an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him, and

which signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or
indifference.
The failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized

officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such
missing funds to personal use. All that is necessary to prove malversation is
to show that defendant received in his possession public funds, he could not
account for them and did not have them in his possession when audited, and
he could not give satisfactory or reasonable excuse for the disappearance of
said funds.
123
TREASURERS
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1445)
CASE NO. 14
FACTS:
The complaint stemmed from the findings embodied in the Audit Report of
the Audit Team of COA, in their examination of the cash and accounts of
respondent City Treasurer and other accountable officers. A Joint Affidavit
was executed which resulted to the filing of a criminal complaint, hence
recommended this administrative aspect for adjudication.
The City Treasurer committed the ff: (a) secured cash advances without
specific purposes and failed to liquidate and/or render proper accounting
thereof resulting to unliquidated cash advances amounting to Php
10,615,147.31 xxx
124
TREASURERS
ISSUE:
Whether respondents committed the administrative offenses of Dishonesty
and Grave Misconduct.
HELD:
Xxx
however, respondent failure to liquidate his cash advances amounting to
p10,615,147.31 (item a) has been established in this case as found by the
COA.
125
TREASURERS
Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired

expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matter are
generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings
are supported by substantial evidence.
As Treasurer, it is his duty to perform his responsibilities diligently, faithfully,

and efficiently. It behooves him to exercise the highest degree of care over
the custody, management, and disbursement of government funds.
Arias Doctrine not applicable, in Arias case, the primary responsibility was
held to be on the shoulders of a subordinate, the cash advances in this
present case were all in the name of respondent, thus the primary obligation
and responsibility to have the same liquidated rests upon him and not on his
subordinate.
126
TREASURERS
Verily, the failure to ensure the timely liquidation of the cash advances
violates applicable laws and certainly deserves sanction. This Office however
finds that respondent’s failure to liquidate his cash advances amounts only to
a Neglect of Duty
127

Common Violations of Treasurers and Assistant Treasurers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Common Violations of Treasurers and Assistant Treasurers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

27

July 2015 to December 2017

GOVERNMENT REFORM PROCUREMENT ACT (R.A. No. 9184)

GOVERNMENT REFORM PROCUREMENT ACT (R.A. No. 9184)

(Suspension of 1month from the service)

GOVERNMENT REFORM PROCUREMENT ACT (R.A. No. 9184)

GOVERNMENT REFORM PROCUREMENT ACT (R.A. No. 9184)

GOVERNMENT REFORM PROCUREMENT ACT (R.A. No. 9184)

Respondents deprived the government of the opportunity to obtain cheaper

(Suspension of four (4) months without pay)

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184

Complainant alleged that respondents, as members of the BAC, conspired to

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184

even if it failed to comply with the specification required by the municipality.

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184

(Dismissal from the Service)

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184

Note: The Office of the Ombudsman overturned their decision and

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184

IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF R.A. No. 9184

(Dismissal from the Service)

COA CIRCULARS AND NGAS FOR LGUS

COA CIRCULARS AND NGAS FOR LGUS

Under Section 5 of Commission on Audit (COA) Circular 97-002 provides that

COA CIRCULARS AND NGAS FOR LGUS

COA CIRCULARS AND NGAS FOR LGUS

COA CIRCULARS AND NGAS FOR LGUS

(Suspension of 6 months from the service)

COA CIRCULARS AND NGAS FOR LGUS

COA CIRCULARS AND NGAS FOR LGUS

(Dismissal from the Service)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (R.A. NO. 7160)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (R.A. NO. 7160)

A complaint was filed as the municipality remained in default of its loan

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (R.A. NO. 7160)

There is, however, no fault or negligence attributable to respondent Treasurer

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (R.A. NO. 7160)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (R.A. NO. 7160)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (R.A. NO. 7160)

(Suspension for Three (3) Months without pay)

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019)

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO. 3019)

(Dismissal from the Service)

ISSUE: Whether there is substantial evidence to hold respondent guilty of

Undeniably, respondent failed to rebut the legal presumption that she

(Dismissal from the Service)

Respondent was grossly negligent of his administrative function as

failure of an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him, and

The failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized

(Dismissal from the Service)

Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1445)

Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1445)

Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1445)

Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired

As Treasurer, it is his duty to perform his responsibilities diligently, faithfully,

Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1445)

You might also like