The case of the stolen cellphone

This is a case of a lost cellular phone that has gone all the way up to the Supreme Court (believe it or not). It involves the CAMANAVA (Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas, Valenzuela) district director of TESDA (Technological Education and Skills Development Authority)

Coming from a meeting with the Regional Director in Taguig, she had to rush back to her office in Caloocan to catch a three p.m. meeting. For this reason, she boarded the Light Rail Transit (LRT) at Buendia on a Friday between 2 to 2:30 p.m. But inside the crowded LRT, her handbag was slashed and its contents stolen by an unidentified person. Among the items taken from her were her wallet and the government-issued cellular phone. She reported the incident that same day to the police authorities who immediately conducted an investigation. However, all efforts to locate the thief and to recover the phone proved futile.

Three days later, she wrote a memorandum to the regional director reporting the theft and requesting relief from accountability for the government-issued cellphone. The resident auditor to whom the request was indorsed however denied the request and ordered her to pay the purchase value of the cellphone (P3,988) and that of its case (P250), a total of P4,238. This denial was sustained by the National Government Audit Office II and subsequently the Commission on Audit (COA) itself.

According to the COA, the district director failed to exercise that degree of diligence required under the circumstances to prevent/avoid the loss. When she opted to take the LRT which undeniably, was almost always packed and overcrowded especially at the day and time she boarded it, she exposed herself to the danger and the possibility of losing things such as the subject cellular phone to pickpockets. As an accountable officer, she was under obligation to exercise proper degree of care and diligence in safeguarding the property. And even if the theft can be considered a fortuitous event, she cannot invoke such event to escape liability because it will only apply in the absence of negligence on her part.

Was the COA correct?

No.

Riding the LRT cannot per se be denounced as a negligent act; more so under the circumstances in this case in which the district director’s mode of transit was influenced by time and money considerations. She boarded the LRT to arrive in Caloocan in time for her 3:00 p.m. meeting. Any prudent and rational person under similar circumstances can reasonably be expected to do the same. Possession of a cellular phone would not and should not hinder one from boarding LRT coach as she did. After all, whether she took a bus or a jeepney, the risk of theft would have also been present. Because of her relatively low position and pay, she was not expected to have her own vehicle or to ride a taxicab. Neither had the government granted her the use of any vehicle.

The Rules implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provide that property for official use and purpose shall be utilized with the diligence of a good father of a family. Extraordinary measures are not called for in taking care of a cellular phone while in transit. Placing it in a bag away from the covetous eyes and holding on to that bag is ordinarily a sufficient care of a cellular phone while traveling on board the LRT ( Cruz vs. Gangan, G.R. 143403, January 22, 2003).

This case all the more proves the topsy-turvy priorities of our government. Instead of wasting all those time, money and effort to pin responsibility on a lowly employee for the measly sum of P4,000, it should run after the big crooks who cause millions of losses but usually get away with impunity.