This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| A similar case, Leano v. Domingo,[84] showed that the safety of money cannot be ensured when it is deposited in enclosures other than the safety vault. Leano also involves a government cashier whose money accountability was lost through robbery. As in this case, the cashier did not keep her money accountabilities in the vault. Requesting this court to review the Commission on Audit's denial of her request for accountability, Leano argued that she had no other choice but to use a steel cabinet to keep her money accountabilities because the former cashier did not entrust to her the safety vault's combination. This court upheld the Commission on Audit's decision to deny Leano's request for relief from accountabilities and found her to be negligent in handling her money accountabilities:[I]t is evident that petitioner fell short of the demands inherent in her position. As aptly argued by the Solicitor General, an exercise of proper diligence expected of her position would have compelled petitioner to request an immediate change of the combination of the safe. However, the record is bare of any showing that petitioner had, at least, exerted any effort to have the combination changed, content with the fact that, according to her, the former cashier also used the steel cabinet as depository of the funds. | |||||
|
2015-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| "The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The Law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that."[88] | |||||