Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

ARIAS DOCTRINE (Initial Signature of Subordinates)

The Arias Doctrine refers to a 1989 Supreme Court ruling that a head of office is not required to examine every detail of every transaction from start to finish. Heads of offices must reasonably rely on subordinates to handle details and assume good faith. Signing documents routinely is not enough on its own to sustain conspiracy charges without other evidence, given the large volumes of paperwork department heads must approve.

Uploaded by

Jose Li To
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

ARIAS DOCTRINE (Initial Signature of Subordinates)

The Arias Doctrine refers to a 1989 Supreme Court ruling that a head of office is not required to examine every detail of every transaction from start to finish. Heads of offices must reasonably rely on subordinates to handle details and assume good faith. Signing documents routinely is not enough on its own to sustain conspiracy charges without other evidence, given the large volumes of paperwork department heads must approve.

Uploaded by

Jose Li To
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

What is the Arias Doctrine?

Arias Doctrine refer to the ruling laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, (G.R. No. 81563, December 19, 1989, 180 SCRA 390), to the
effect that a head of office is not required to examine every single detail of any
transaction from its inception until it is finally approved.
"We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common
problems � dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or
positions, or plain incompetence � is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction
simply because he did not personally examine every single detail, painstakingly
trace every step from inception, and investigate the motives of every person
involved in a transaction before affixing his signature as the final approving
authority. x x x.

All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and
on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into
negotiations. x x x. There has to be some added reason why he should examine each
voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or
commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. There are
hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda, vouchers, and supporting papers that
routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or department is
even more appalling. There should be other grounds than the mere signature or
approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.
TAGS:

You might also like