Case Digest (G.R. No. 214336-37)
Facts:
Jessica M. Chozas, et al. v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 226319) and Dr. Mariano C. De Jesus, et al. v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 235031), October 08, 2019, Supreme Court En Banc, A. Reyes, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The consolidated petitions arise from the Bulacan State University’s (BulSU) grant of a 2012 Accomplishment Incentive Award (AIA). By Board of Regents (BoR) Resolution No. 39 (Series of 2012) the BoR authorized payment of the AIA to officials, faculty and non‑academic personnel. One hundred sixty‑four Disbursement Vouchers charged to the Special Trust Fund (STF) resulted in total disbursements of Php37,876,296.57 to various payees.
On post‑audit, the audit team issued Notice(s) of Disallowance (ND) Nos. 13‑001‑164(12) to 13‑042‑164(12) dated March 12, 2013, disallowing the AIA as irregular, without legal basis and contrary to Article IX‑B, Sec. 8 of the 1987 Constitution, R.A. No. 6758 (Salary Standardization Law) and related COA guidance (including COA Circular No. 2013‑003). Aggrieved recipients and approving officers appealed to COA Regional Office No. III; the appeals were consolidated and the Regional Director, by Decision dated February 28, 2014, upheld the NDs and ordered the recipients and approving officers to return the disallowed amounts.
Thereafter two separate Petitions for Review were filed with the Commission Proper. The petition filed by the employees (petitioners‑employees) led to COA Decision No. 2016‑096 (June 6, 2016) affirming the Regional Director and declaring named officers and employees liable to refund. The petition filed by the officials (petitioners‑officials) was dismissed by COA Decision No. 2017‑326 (September 27, 2017) for being filed beyond the reglementary appeal period; the COA therefore declared the Regional Director’s decision final and executory and directed supplemental NDs where appropriate.
The petitioners‑employees filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, before the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. 226319). The petitioners‑officials separately filed a Petition for Certiorari (docketed G.R. No. 235031) challenging COA Decision No. 2017‑326. The Court consolidated both cases by Resolution dated January 15, 2019. The petitioners argued that the AIA was a proper disbursement from the STF under Section 4(d) of R.A. No. 8292 and under COA Circular No. 2000‑002; they also contended they acted in good faith. COA (through the OSG) urged dis...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COA correctly dismiss the petitioners‑officials’ Petition for Review as filed out of time, thereby rendering the Regional Director’s decision final?
- Does the petitioners‑employees’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration against COA Decision No. 2016‑096 bar Supreme Court review?
- Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming ND Nos. 13‑001‑164(12) to 13‑042‑164(12) disallowing the Accomplishment Incentive Award?
- Are the recipients and approving offic...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)