Facts:

The case involves Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as the petitioner and the Commission on Audit (COA) along with Recarredo S. Valenzuela as the respondents. The events leading to the case began on January 23, 2006, when the Supreme Court deliberated on a petition for certiorari filed by BSP to contest the December 29, 2003, judgment of the COA, which permitted the release of Valenzuela's retirement benefits. Valenzuela had been employed with the defunct Air Transportation Unit (ATU) of BSP's Security Investigation and Transportation Department since March 1, 1990. His responsibilities included accountability for spare parts and equipment related to BSP's aircraft. On July 20, 1993, he executed a certification adopting responsibility for properties previously held by the outgoing Chief Aircraft Maintenance Officer. Upon his retirement on June 30, 1994, BSP withheld his retirement benefits amounting to P291,555.00, claiming he failed to settle his accountabilities, s

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Recarredo S. Valenzuela was employed by the defunct Air Transportation Unit (ATU) of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ (BSP) Security Investigation and Transportation Department (SITD) starting March 1, 1990.
• During his tenure, he was entrusted with the direct accountability over spare parts and equipment used for BSP’s aircraft.

Assignment of Responsibility and Retirement

• On July 20, 1993, while serving as Administrative Services Officer II/Property Supply Officer, Valenzuela executed a certification assuming responsibility over all properties issued to the outgoing Chief Aircraft Maintenance Officer/PSO.
• Upon his retirement on June 30, 1994, BSP refused to release his retirement benefits amounting to P291,555.00, citing his failure to settle his property accountabilities.

- The unaccounted spare parts allegedly totaled 1,314 pieces with a valuation of P1,007,263.59. - This figure was derived from information provided by the BSP Administrative Services Department (ASD).

Administrative and COA Proceedings

• Valenzuela filed a complaint with the Human Resources Management Department (HRMD) of BSP regarding the withholding of his retirement benefits, but his claim was denied.
• He then appealed to the Commission on Audit (COA), which subsequently rendered a decision on December 29, 2003, allowing the release of his retirement benefits.

- The COA held that retirement gratuities cannot be withheld, deducted, or applied to the indebtedness of an employee without his/her explicit consent. - Valenzuela’s assumption of responsibility for the properties, effective September 19, 1992, and his signature on the list of unaccounted properties (as of February 28, 1995), constituted an admission of indebtedness. - BSP argued that, under the ruling in Villanueva v. Tantuico, Jr., there should be a mutual compensation mechanism between creditor and debtor.

Legal Issue Presented

• The central issue was whether BSP may validly withhold Valenzuela’s retirement benefits and unilaterally apply those benefits to satisfy his alleged indebtedness to the government.

Subsequent Developments and Contentions

• BSP, relying on certain legal provisions such as Section 624 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 265 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, maintained that his signature and actions implied his consent to the retention and setoff.
• Valenzuela, however, categorically stated in a February 9, 1999 letter to BSP that he never admitted to any indebtedness nor consented to such retention of his benefits.

Issue:

• Whether BSP can validly withhold a public officer’s retirement benefits to satisfy an alleged indebtedness to the government without the officer’s explicit consent or a final judicial determination.
• Whether the acts of assuming responsibility and signing the inventory list may be construed as an implicit admission of indebtedness sufficient to warrant the setoff of retirement benefits.
• Whether administrative bodies like the COA possess the authority to unilaterally determine and enforce such a setoff under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)