Facts:

The case involves a petition for certiorari filed by Ronald S. Abrigo, Anabella S. Altuna, Ryan James V. Ayson, Florendo B. Batasin, Jr., Leonor C. Cleofas, and 81 other current and former employees of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System Corporate Office (MWSS-CO) against the Commission on Audit (COA) and several of its officials. The pivotal events of the case stem from the issuance of four Notices of Disallowance (NDs) by the COA on June 30, 2014, which disallowed meal allowances totaling PHP 8,173,730.00 granted to MWSS officials and employees for the calendar years 2012 and 2013. The NDs specified that these allowances were excessive and without legal basis because they exceeded the PHP 66.00 monthly allowance as per the Corporate Operating Budget (COB) approved by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The COA asserted that only employees who were incumbents as of June 30, 1989, were entitled to this allowance, effectively disallowing any payments made t

...

Facts:

Background and Nature of the Dispute

• The case involves 81 petitioners, current and former officers and employees of the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System – Corporate Office (MWSS-CO), challenging the disallowance of meal allowances paid during calendar years 2012 and 2013.
• The aggregate amount disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA) is P8,173,730.00, which relates to meal allowances purportedly approved by the MWSS Board of Trustees.

Payment Details and Notices of Disallowance (NDs)

• In 2012 and 2013, varying amounts were granted as meal allowances to MWSS-CO personnel based on board resolutions, even though these allowances exceeded the authorized limits.
• COA issued four separate NDs:
• ND No. 14-005-05-(12) for incumbents (2012) – P2,142,850.00
• ND No. 14-006-05-(12) for non-incumbents (2012) – P2,033,200.00
• ND No. 14-007-05-(13) for incumbents (2013) – P2,086,800.00
• ND No. 14-008-05-(13) for non-incumbents (2013) – P1,910,880.00
• The COA found that for MWSS employees who were incumbents as of the statutory cut-off, only a meal allowance of P66.00 per month was justified; non-incumbents were not entitled to any meal allowance under the DBM-approved Corporate Operating Budget (COB).

Procedural History and Arguments Presented

• Petitioners, some of whom acted as both recipients and approving/certifying officers, initially appealed the COA’s NDs through the COA Cluster Director.
• They defended the board resolutions by asserting that the MWSS Board, empowered by the MWSS Charter and evidenced by Concession Agreements, had the autonomy to grant employee benefits, including the meal allowance.
• Petitioners argued that the allowance grant predates the standardization of government salaries and that MWSS-CO is exempt from the regular compensation system.
• The COA Cluster Director, and subsequently the COA Proper in Decision No. 2019-09 and Resolution No. 2020-038, upheld the disallowance on grounds of lack of prior Presidential approval and procedural default, noting that the appeals were filed beyond the reglementary period under PD 1445.

Substantive and Administrative Issues Raised

• The central dispute is whether the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing petitioners’ appeal—filed out-of-time—and sustaining the disallowance of meal allowances.
• A related issue is the interpretation of the proper cut-off date for incumbency; while the NDs used 30 June 1989, petitioners contend that the statutory requirement under RA 6758 mandates a cut-off of 01 July 1989.
• There is also a contention regarding the scope of liability of the petitioners, distinguishing between those who simply certified documentary completeness and those who actively approved the payments.

Developments Leading to the Petition

• After COA’s final and executory rulings, petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court seeking certiorari under Rule 64 (in relation to Rule 65), asking for reversal and modification in view of procedural lapses and substantive issues.
• The petition also highlights the logistical difficulties imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which delayed coordination and document collation for the filing of the petition.

Issue:

Timeliness of the Petition

• Whether the petition, despite being filed eighteen (18) days after the reglementary period, may be allowed to proceed in light of substantive justice considerations.

Allegation of Grave Abuse of Discretion

• Whether the COA Proper gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the petition on procedural grounds and by sustaining the disallowance of the meal allowances without proper legal basis.

Scope of Authority and Legal Basis for Meal Allowance

• Whether the MWSS Board’s approval of meal allowances, which exceeded the allowed amount and were granted to non-incumbents, was within its legal authority or ultra vires in light of RA 6758, PD 985, and PD 1597.
• Whether the statutory interpretation requires the use of 01 July 1989—not 30 June 1989—as the cut-off date to determine incumbency and entitlement to the meal allowance.

Liability of Approving and Certifying Officers

• Whether petitioners who acted in their capacity as approving/certifying officers should be held solidarily liable for the disallowed amounts.
• Whether those who merely performed ministerial duties related to certification (attesting to completeness of documents and cash availability) should be exempted from such liability.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)