LICEO DE CAGAYAN UNIVERSITY

JURIS DOCTOR-I

VICTOR M. BARROSO, petitioner

vs
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent
|GR NO. 253253|

Facts:
 March 17,2005: Evelyn Mag abo (administrative officer II) granted a cash
advance of P574,215.27 for BSU employee’s salaries expenses.
March 28,2005 @9am: Mag abo went to Land bank to encash payroll check
@11am: Mag abo cash was robbed near Caltex, the robbers flew away
 Mag abo requested relief from cash accountability: DENIED!
 Mag abo elevated her case to COA proper via petition for review: DENIED!
 Mag abo shall be held solidarily liable with Gregory and Barroso for their
negligence in providing security escort and service vehicle during the time of the
loss.
 Barroso, petitioner, filed a motion for reconsideration invoking his right to due
process and questioning the basis of his supposed liability: DENIED!
 Barroso, the petitioner, argues that the COA proper acted with grave abuse of
discretion when it found him solidarily liable to return the stolen amount without
observing his right to due process of law amidst insufficiency of evidence to
establish negligence on his part.
 Barroso received a copy of reconsideration on Aug 25,2020.
- Rulings: 17 days to file for a petition
- He sent the file thru private courier on Sept 11,2020
- The Court: received the file on Sept 21,2020 (10 days late from filing)
Issue/s:
 Did the COA violate Barroso, the petitioner’s right to due process?
 Whether or not Barroso, the petitioner, is still liable for the money lost?
 Whether or not Barroso filed an overdue petition for certiorari?
Rulings:
 No. The COA proper did not act with grave abuse in regards with Barroso’s right
of due process when it held him liable for his failure to implement security
measures in relation to the management of BSU’s funds. Indeed, it was only after
the incident wherein this matter was taken a value therein.

M, JD
Maita Jullane M. Daan | CASE DIGESTS
 LICEO DE CAGAYAN UNIVERSITY
JURIS DOCTOR-I

Barroso, the petitioner, was not denied due process. For he was afforded an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the ruling complained of.

 Yes. As per petitioners’ liability, the petitioner was found liable though he was
never charged. The proceedings prior to the COA proper’s reconsideration all
pointed to Mag abo as a sole negligent party responsible for the loss pf
P574,215.27 representing the BSU personnel salaries expenses.
Petitioner only got involved when the COA proper denied Mag abo’s motion for
reconsideration and ordered him to pay the unliquidated amount.
 No. The procedure for accreditation is prescribed under Administrative Order
242-A-2020 which the Court En Banc approved on September 1, 2020. Said
Administrative Order took effect was mailed to the Court on September 11, 2020.
Indubitably, the filing of the petition was not in accordance with the aforecited
rule. Thus, Barroso’s manner of filing the petition for certiorari/other court files is
still acceptable by the Court. Because the date when the Court received the
petition, Sept 1,2020, should be considered as the date of filling.

Held:
 The petition was GRANTED.
 The COA-proper was NULLIFIED, insofar as they hold petitioner, Barroso,
solidarily liable with Mag abo and Gregory to return the amount lost.

M, JD
Maita Jullane M. Daan | CASE DIGESTS