Case Digest (G.R. No. 233308) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
This case, titled Delilah J. Ablong et al. vs. Commission on Audit, was filed under G.R. No. 233308 and resolved by the Supreme Court en banc on August 18, 2020. The petitioners, a group of faculty members from the Negros Oriental State University (NORSU), Dumaguete City, received Economic Relief Allowance (ERA) of Php 25,000 each in 2008 and Php 30,000 each in 2009 and 2010, as authorized by Board Resolution No. 28, Series of 2008. On January 27, 2011, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued several Notices of Disallowance (NDs), claiming that the allowances were not approved by the President of the Philippines and that the funding was improperly sourced from tuition and other school charges. The NDs were received by the NORSU Acting Chief Accountant on February 16, 2011, yet the petitioners made no appeal at that time. Subsequently, on August 31, 2011, a Notice of Finality of Decision (NFD) was issued. COA later issued an Order of Execution (COE) on November 23, 2011, to enforce
Case Digest (G.R. No. 233308) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background and Grant of Economic Relief Allowance (ERA)
- In calendar year 2008, the Board of Regents of the Negros Oriental State University (NORSU) passed Board Resolution No. 28, Series of 2008.
- The resolution granted an Economic Relief Allowance (ERA) amounting to ₱25,000.00 each to all regular, casual, temporary, or part-time personnel and officials of NORSU.
- In the succeeding years 2009 and 2010, ERA was similarly provided in the amount of ₱30,000.00 each.
- Petitioners, who were teachers at NORSU, received ERA for each of these calendar years (2008–2010).
- Issuance of Notices of Disallowance and Subsequent Actions
- On January 27, 2011, the COA Audit Team issued a series of Notices of Disallowance (ND Nos. 2011-001-164 for 2008 up to 2011-013-164 for 2010).
- The grounds cited included the absence of the approval of the President of the Philippines and the illegal debit from tuition fees and other school charges.
- The NDs along with the letter-transmittal were received by NORSU’s Acting Chief Accountant, Liwayway G. Alba, on February 16, 2011.
- No appeal was made by the petitioners at the time; consequently, on August 31, 2011, a Notice of Finality of Decision (NFD) was issued.
- On November 23, 2011, a COA Order of Execution (COE) was subsequently issued to enforce the disallowance decisions.
- Petitioners’ Efforts to Seek Reconsideration
- On January 18, 2012, petitioner Delilah J. Ablong, representing the Faculty and Academic Staff Association/All NORSU Faculty Union, sent a letter to COA Regional Director Delfin P. Aguilar.
- In her letter, Ablong asserted that she and her colleagues were not informed that the Board of Regents’ grant of ERA had been disallowed.
- She maintained that they only became aware of the disallowance when copies of the NFD were provided by the Office of the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
- Ablong prayed for alternative remedies instead of the requirement to refund the ERA amounts.
- On February 7, 2012, COA Regional Director Aguilar replied by denying the request.
- He stated that the enforcement of the COE could no longer be deferred since NFDs had already been issued.
- He further maintained that any appeal from the NDs contravened COA Circular No. 2009-006 regarding the settlement of accounts.
- Subsequent Legal Steps and COA’s Disposition on the Petition for Review
- Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review before the COA Proper, contesting the denial of their reconsideration request.
- They argued that the COA rules on the reglementary period should not have been strictly applied because they had not been properly notified of the issuance of the NDs.
- They also argued that they received the ERA in good faith and should not be obliged to refund the amounts disallowed.
- On July 28, 2016, the COA rendered its decision dismissing the petition for review.
- The dismissal was based on the finding that the six-month period to appeal an ND had expired.
- The COA further declared that the subject appeal from the letter-reply of the Regional Director was improper, as the proper remedy was an appeal of the ND decision before it became final and executory.
- Petition for Certiorari to the Court
- Finding no remedy in the COA review process, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari questioning:
- Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- Whether the non-service of the NDs to the petitioners and the consequent denial of their right to due process could justify setting aside the final and executory administrative orders.
Issues:
- Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by:
- Upholding the Notices of Finality of Decision (NFDs) and the COA Orders of Execution (COEs) despite the alleged lack of actual service of the NDs to the petitioners.
- Ignoring the petitioners’ claim of due process violation in that they were not individually informed of the issuance of the NDs.
- Whether the petitioners’ receipt of the ERA in good faith, under the assumption that the Board of Regents’ resolution was lawfully enacted, should exempt them from refunding the disallowed amounts.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)