Leycano v COA
Facts:
Petitioner Manuel Leycano, Jr. was the Provincial Treasurer of Oriental Mindoro and at the same time a
member of the Provincial School Board (PSB) of that province.
During his tenure, he was appointed by the PSB as a member of its Inspectorate Team which, according
to him, had the function of "monitoring the progress of PSB projects. “In the year 1995, several checks
were issued to various private contractors in connection with the repair, rehabilitation, and construction
projects covered by the Special Education Fund (SEF) of Oriental Mindoro to several public schools.
The Special Audit Team, COA Regional Office No. IV, headed by State Auditor Joselyn Cirujano (the
Auditor), subsequently audited selected transactions under the SEF of the Province of Oriental Mindoro,
which included those projects covered by the checks issued.
The Special Audit Team found deficiencies in the projects; hence, it issued the questioned Notices of
Disallowance holding petitioner, liable for signing the Certificates of Inspection relative to the projects
and thereby falsely attesting to their 100% completion
Petitioner appealed that he be excluded from those lists held liable for the deficiency of the project
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is held accountable for the deficiency of the said project?
Decision:
In light of this function of the Inspectorate Team, its members may be held liable by the COA for any
irregular expenditure of the SEF if their participation in such irregularity can be established. While
petitioner, in his capacity as member of the Inspectorate Team, is not an accountable officer as
contemplated in Section101 of P.D. No. 1445, which states:
SEC. 101. Accountable officers; bond requirement — (1) Every officer of any government agency whose
duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or property shall be
accountable therefore and for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with law. (2) Every accountable
officer shall be properly bonded in accordance with law, he may, nonetheless, be held liable by the COA
under the broad jurisdiction vested on it by the Constitution" to examine, audit, and settle all accounts
pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or
held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government." In addition, the authority of the COA to hold
petitioner liable is also implied in its duty to “promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations,
including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties.”
Furthermore, Section 340 of the Local Government Code (LGC) clearly provides:
SECTION 340. Persons Accountable for Local Government Funds — Any officer of the local government
unit whose duty permits or requires the possession or custody of local government funds shall be
accountable and responsible for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with the provisions of this Title.
Other local officers who, though not accountable by the nature of their duties, may likewise be similarly
held accountable and responsible for local government funds through their participation in the use or
application thereof. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Payment should not be made to a contractor without the prior inspection of the project by the
Inspectorate Team, the members thereof who sign the certificate of inspection participate in the use
and application of local government funds (in this case, the Special Education Fund of the Province of
Oriental Mindoro). Thus, if there is an irregularity in the performance of this duty, they may be held
liable for any loss that is incurred by the government as a consequence thereof. In this case, there was
such irregularity when petitioner and other members of the Team attested to the 100% completion of
the projects notwithstanding their undisputed deficiencies.
Section 340 of the LGC states: “…Other local officers who, though not accountable by the nature of their
duties, may likewise be similarly held accountable and responsible for local government funds through
their participation in the use or application thereof.” Expressly provides that even officers though not
accountable by the nature of their duties shall be accountable upon involvement of local government
funds. A member of the inspectorate team is not an accountable person, but may be held liable by the
above provision.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
Doctrine: Discretion to the most competent people
