WHEN Fernando Aquino, a security officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), decided to put down his sickly four-legged patrol partner, he had no inkling the dog’s death would haunt him for the next 18 years.
Marco, a Belgian Malinois, was euthanized on January 3, 2003 after an agency veterinarian diagnosed him for Chronic Degenerative Organ Disease attributed to old age.
Before signing on the dotted line, Aquino secured the approval of the SBMA Law Enforcement Department, the Procurement and Property Management Department, and had the procedure witnessed by a representative of the Commission on Audit.
However, he filed for relief from property accountability only on December 14, 2015 as part of the processing of his papers preparatory to his mandatory retirement.
While the security officer explained that he was unaware that he was required to file the request within 30 days after Marco’s death, the COA Region 3 denied the clearance, which meant he was held liable for P180,123.17, the book value of the K-9 dog.
In his appeal challenging the February 2, 2016 ruling, Aquino invoked justice and equity, saying he observed all the required procedures.
The COA Commission Proper reversed the COA Region 3 and upheld the appellant’s stand that the 30-day period should not be applied, relieving him of any liability.
It noted the veterinarian’s recommendation was backed by a finding that Marco had exhibited “lethargy, reluctance to move, unresponsive to calls, sluggishness, loss of appetite and emaciation.”
“The cause of the loss is not any of the unforeseen events enumerated therein such as fire, theft, or other casualty or force majeure, but a prudent act to dispose of the patrol dog for being no longer serviceable. In this case, since the patrol dog was no longer functioning well and serviceable, its disposal through euthanasia was necessary,” the commission pointed out.
