LETICIA A. ALIMARIO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

The petitioner’s complaint is not unfamillar to the Court. She is being required to account for alleged
transactions long past and of which the government itself has no record.

After serving in the government for 43 years, petitioner Leticia
A. Alimario retired on November 17, 1989, when she reached the age of 65. She was then Section Chief of the Billing Unit,
Collection Branch of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), Region No. 4-C, San
Pablo City.

The processing of her retirement papers was delayed when the
Accounting Division of the BIR National Office refused to issue her national
clearance. The reason given was
incomplete supporting papers in her monthly reports from June 4, 1973 to May 9,
1974, when she was the Acting Accountable Officer of the Administrative Branch,
Revenue Region No. 9 (later re-numbered
as Region 4-C).^[1]

On April 2, 1990, Carmelita S. J. Pascual, Assistant Chief of the Revenue
Accounting Division (RAD) of the BIR National Office, informed the petitioner
that her subsidiary ledger for documentary and science stamps accountabilities
as District Collection Supervisor of San Pablo City had an outstanding ledger
balance of P6,010.00 and P165,308.50, respectively.^[2]
She was advised to submit any document that would offset that balance. However, the petitioner could only present
copies of (a) Regional Travel Assignment Order No. 2-74 dated May 3, 1974,
where it was stated that she was being transferred to the Office of Collection
Agent, San Pablo City and that Francisco P. Evasco was assuming her position in
the administrative branch;^[3] (b) a
Memorandum Receipt dated May 13, 1974, signed by Evasco, which showed that the
petitioner submitted to him the working sheets of the documentary and science
stamps from May 1 to 10, 1974 as well as the monthly report of accountability
for the period of June 1973 to April 1974;^[4] and
(c) a clearance, issued by Evasco on May 13, 1974, to the effect that she had
no money and property accountabilities as of that date.^[5]

It appeared that the official records of the COA in San Pablo
City for the period 1970-1980, which included the file of reports and
certificate of settlement of Alimario, were burned with the termite-infested
warehouse where they were stored. This
was the report made by Rodolfo C. Sy, State Auditor for San Pablo City. Armando A. Duran, Chief of the BIR
Accountable Forms Division (AFD), certified that the AFD had no records of
issuances for documentary and science stamps prior to January 1, 1974 and that
the earliest report from Revenue Region No. 4-C, San Pablo City, was made in
June 1975.^[6]

Acting on this certification, BIR Deputy Commissioner Victor A.
Deoferio, Jr. recommended to the COA the approval of Alimario’s request to
condone or write off her unaccounted and outstanding ledger balances in science
and documentary stamps in the amounts of P137,601.00 and P28,010.00,
respectively.^[7]

State Auditors Teresa F. Demetillo and Alipio S. Bernardo, Jr., in separate indorsements,^[8] approved Alimario’s request to write
off the P137,601.00 unrecorded requisition of science stamps but opined
that the amount of P28,010.00 representing the outstanding balance of
documentary stamps should be deducted from her terminal leave pay.

Meanwhile, in order to expedite the release of her retirement
pay, the petitioner agreed to the deduction of the amount of P28,010.00
from her terminal leave pay without prejudice to her right to appeal an adverse
judgment of the COA.

On April 3, 1991, the COA rendered its Decision No. 1815^[9]
adopting the recommendations of Demetillo and Bernardo thus:

x               x          x

In view of the representations herein made and the favorable
recommendation contained in the preceding 1st and 2nd Indorsements dated
November 23, 1990 and December 5, 1990, respectively, this Commission
interposes no objection to the herein request that the unaccounted balance in
the subsidiary ledger of science stamps amounting to P137,601.00 be
taken up as unrecorded requisition of stamps and that the shortage of P28,010.00
representing outstanding balance of documentary stamps be deducted from the terminal leave pay of Ms. Leticia A.
Alimario pursuant to Section 37 of P.D. 1445.

Accordingly, a journal voucher may now be drawn to adjust the books
of the agency concerning the shortage of P28,010.00 and the overage of P137,601.00
with these papers as supporting documents, furnishing a copy thereof to that
office for record and audit purposes.

In its Decision No. 2332 dated June 3, 1992, the COA denied
Alimario’s motion for reconsideration.^[10]

The petitioner is now seeking the reversal of these two decisions
and the refund of the P28,010.00 withheld from her. She avers that the said decisions are not
supported by substantial evidence and that the COA merely relied on the
recommendations of State Auditors Demetillo and Bernardo.

Did the COA err in deducting the amount of P28,010.00 from
the petitioner’s terminal leave pay?

The Solicitor General manifested his support for the petition and
suggested that the COA be given an opportunity to defend its decisions.

In its Comment, respondent COA explains the difference between
“overage” and “shortage” thus:

A shortage occurs when the recorded accountability of
an accountable officer is more than what is actually on hand at the time of the
examination – the shortage being the difference between the two. The shortage is then required to be
restituted by the accountable officer. On the other hand, overage takes place when the amount actually
on hand at the time of the examination exceeds
the recorded accountability. The
overage which is represented by the excess is receipted for and taken up as
government funds.

The respondent Commission says that the P28,010.00 in
documentary stamps should be deducted from the petitioner’s terminal leave pay
because it is a “shortage.” However, it appears that the COA’s
classification of said amount as a shortage (and the P137,601.00 as an
overage) has no foundation. No record
exists to prove that Alimario is responsible for the unaccounted balances. The sole basis of the COA in this regard is
the April 2, 1990 notice of Carmelita S. J. Pascual. However, the balances mentioned therein, to wit, P6,010.00
in documentary stamps and P165,308.50 in science stamps, do not correspond to
the amounts claimed from the petitioner.

By contrast, there are four points in favor of the petitioner
that justify her claim for relief.

The first is the clean slate given her by her successor in
office, Francisco P. Evasco, in 1974,^[11]
after she had submitted all the documents and records which were in her
possession at that time.

The second is the declaration made by San Pablo City State
Auditor Rodolfo C. Sy on September 12, 1990, that (a) the official records of
his office for the years 1970-1980 had been disposed of by burning because the
bodega where they were stored had been destroyed by termites; (b) the file of
reports as well as certificates of settlement requested by the national office
were among those documents; and (c) efforts exerted to locate any other
reference had failed.^[12]

Third, Armando Duran, chief of the Accountable Forms Division of
the BIR, certified that his division had no available records of issuances for
documentary and science stamps prior to January 1, 1974, and that the earliest
monthly report of accountabilities of Revenue Region No. 4-C, San Pablo City,
was dated June 1975.^[13]

Finally, on October 11, 1990, BIR Deputy Commissioner Victor A.
Deoferio, Jr. recommended that the unaccounted balances of Alimario be condoned
or written off from the books of the BIR, without distinguishing between the P137,601.00
in science stamps and the P28,010.00 in documentary stamps.^[14]

The latter amount was first termed a “shortage” by
State Auditor Demetillo in her first indorsement of Alimario’s case. State Auditor Bernardo, in his second
indorsement, made no mention of the term but reiterated Demetillo’s
recommendation that the said amount be deducted from the petitioner’s terminal
leave pay.^[15]
These recommendations became the basis of the disputed decisions of the COA.

It is evident that the COA Decisions Nos. 1815 and 2332 were
reached without any supporting evidence. The cardinal rule is that
any decision or ruling promulgated by an administrative body must have
something to support itself.^[16] The
evidence required before such tribunals is substantial evidence or that
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.^[17]
In the case at bar, there is not only a lack of substantial evidence but there
is in fact a total absence of any evidence that can support the assailed
decisions of the COA.

The Court notes that it took the government all of 17 years
before confronting the petitioner with the alleged shortage. Considering the time that has elapsed, we
appreciate why she could not make a convincing refutation of the claimed
liability. Assuming she originally had records
to disprove it, it is not unlikely that she had lost or disposed of them by
this time as she had no reason to suppose that anything was amiss and that she
would be called to an accounting after all these years. We feel that if anyone is to blame, it is
the government itself for its faulty records management. It is unfair, to say the least, to hold the
petitioner liable now for its own inability to prove its claim against her.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the challenged
decisions of the Commission on Audit are hereby SET ASIDE. The respondent is DIRECTED to immediately
return to the petitioner the amount of P28,010.00 unlawfully deducted
from her terminal leave pay. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., on leave.

^[1]
Annex “C”, Rollo, p. 30.

^[2]
Annex “D”, Rollo, p. 32.

^[3]
Annex “I”, Rollo, p. 38.

^[4]
Annex
“F”, Rollo, p. 35.

^[5]
Annex “J”, Rollo,
p. 39.

^[6]
Annex “M”, Rollo,
p. 42.

^[7]
Annex “N”, Rollo, p. 43.

^[8]
Annexes “O” and “P”, Rollo, pp. 44-45.

^[9]
Rollo, p. 5.

^[10]
Ibid., p. 6.

^[11]
Annex
“J”, supra.

^[12]
Annex
“L”, Rollo, p. 41.

^[13]
Annex
“M, supra.

^[14]
Annex
“N”, supra.

^[15]
Annexes
“O” and “P”, supra.

^[16]
Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635.

^[17]
Anscor Transport and Terminals, Inc. v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 147.