TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that a presiding officer of a local legislative body, such as a Vice-Governor, cannot be held automatically liable for financial disallowances simply by attesting to a resolution. Liability requires proof of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, not just the routine performance of official duties. This decision protects presiding officers from undue financial responsibility for legislative actions they oversee but do not directly control, ensuring they are not penalized for procedural roles absent demonstrable wrongdoing. The ruling emphasizes that accountability should be based on demonstrable fault, not merely positional authority.

The Vice-Governor’s Signature: Rubber Stamp or Red Flag for Liability?

When the Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Disallowance (ND) for P2.95 million in financial assistance granted by the Province of Antique to the Liga ng mga Barangay, then Vice-Governor Rhodora J. Cadiao found herself personally liable. The funds, intended for barangay insurance premiums, were deemed irregular. But was Vice-Governor Cadiao, who merely presided over the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) session and attested to the resolution authorizing the disbursement, truly culpable? This case delves into the accountability of presiding officers in local legislation, questioning whether their signature signifies automatic liability or if a deeper analysis of their role and culpability is required.

The COA argued that as the presiding officer, Cadiao’s attestation to SP Resolution No. 163A-2008, which approved the financial assistance, made her liable. They pointed to her position and statements during the session as evidence of her active participation and support for the disallowed transaction. However, Cadiao contested this, asserting that her role was limited to presiding and attesting, not voting, and that she acted in good faith. The initial ND listed numerous officials as liable, including Governor Perez and several SP members who voted for the resolution. Crucially, some SP members appealed, and the COA Regional Office (COA RO) even excluded some of them, acknowledging their lack of direct involvement or dissenting votes. This regional decision, however, was subject to automatic review by the COA Proper, leading to the present Supreme Court case.

The legal framework governing this case is multifaceted. Section 49 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160) clearly defines the role of a vice-governor as a presiding officer who votes only to break a tie. In this instance, no tie-breaking vote was necessary. Furthermore, COA Circular No. 2009-006 outlines the principles for determining liability in audit disallowances, emphasizing the nature of the disallowance, the duties of the officer, the extent of participation, and the damage to the government. The Supreme Court, citing Liwanag v. Commission on Audit, first addressed the procedural issue of timeliness, confirming that Cadiao’s appeal was indeed timely due to the automatic review triggered by the COA RO’s modification of the initial ND.

Turning to the core issue of liability, the Court underscored the limited voting power of the presiding officer as defined in the Local Government Code and reinforced in Javier v. Cadiao. Justice Carandang, writing for the Court, emphasized, “In this case, however, there was no tie to break. The subject resolution received the required number of affirmative votes. Consequently, petitioner had no hand and cannot therefore be held liable for passage of the resolution.” The Court rejected the COA’s argument that Cadiao’s statements during the session implied liability, focusing instead on the absence of any vote cast by her in favor of the resolution. Referencing Joson v. Commission on Audit, the Court reiterated that mere signature does not automatically equate to liability, especially when the official is performing their mandated duties. Liability must stem from wrongdoing, not merely from holding a position of authority.

The Supreme Court highlighted the injustice of holding Cadiao liable when she did not directly benefit from the disallowed transaction and acted within her official capacity. The beneficiaries were the Punong Barangays, and there was no evidence of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence on Cadiao’s part. The Court also noted the COA RO’s own exclusion of other SP members who had abstained or voted against the resolution, further weakening the basis for Cadiao’s liability. The ruling clarifies that the role of a presiding officer is primarily procedural, ensuring the smooth conduct of legislative sessions. Attestation, in this context, is a certification of the resolution’s passage, not necessarily an endorsement of its legality or financial prudence, especially when the presiding officer’s vote is not decisive. The Supreme Court ultimately granted Cadiao’s petition, reversing the COA’s decisions and absolving her from liability, setting a crucial precedent for the accountability of presiding officers in local legislative bodies.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Cadiao v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 251995, January 26, 2021