Case Digest (G.R. No. 147392)
Facts:
Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr. v. Commission on Audit and Celso D. Gangan, G.R. No. 147392, March 12, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr. (a Director IV of the Bureau of Labor Relations, DOLE) sought relief under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court to annul the Commission on Audit (COA) Decision No. 2001-045 dated January 30, 2001, which denied his motion for reconsideration of COA Notices of Disallowance Nos. 98-008-101 (95) and 98-017-101 (97) dated July 31 and October 9, 1998 respectively; an Amended Petition (filed August 16, 2002) added Notice No. 98-003-101 (96) which petitioner belatedly received on August 13, 2002.In 1994 petitioner was appointed Director IV of the Bureau of Labor Relations. By Letter dated May 11, 1995, Acting Secretary Jose S. Brillantes designated petitioner as the DOLE representative to the Board of Directors of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) pursuant to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7916. During 1995–1997 petitioner received per diems for attending PEZA board meetings. After a post-audit of PEZA disbursements, COA issued three Notices of Disallowance: (a) No. 98-008-101 (95), P24,500 (July–Dec. 1995); (b) No. 98-003-101 (96), P100,000 (Jan. 1996–Jan. 1997); and (c) No. 98-017-101 (97), P210,000 (Feb. 1997–Jan. 1998). The Notices uniformly grounded the disallowances on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary and COA Memorandum No. 97-038 implementing Senate Committee Report No. 509.
On November 24, 1998 petitioner moved for reconsideration before COA, arguing (inter alia) that the Court’s later clarification limited the prohibition to Cabinet Secretaries, Undersecretaries and their Assistants and that R.A. No. 7916 expressly authorized per diems (and was enacted after Civil Liberties Union). COA denied the motion ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did COA correctly disallow the per diems received by petitioner for attending PEZA Board meetings as the Secretary of Labor’s representative?
- Can the per diem provision of R.A. No. 7916 (or the fact that R.A. No. 7916 was enacted after Civil Liberties Union) validate payment of per diems despite the constitutional prohibition articu...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)