Case Digest (G.R. No. 210838)
Facts:
This is Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 210838, July 03, 2018, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tijam, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) sought nullification by certiorari (Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65) of COA Decision No. 2012-207 (Nov. 15, 2012) denying DBP’s Petition for Review and sustaining COA’s disallowance of the grant called the Governance Forum Productivity Award (GFPA) totaling PhP170,893,689, and of COA’s Resolution (Dec. 6, 2013) denying reconsideration.In 2003 DBP faced labor unrest after this Court struck down DBM CCC No. 10 for nonpublication; following "governance forum" negotiations DBP’s Board approved a one-time GFPA by Board Resolution No. 0133 (May 9, 2003) and disbursed PhP170,893,689. COA opened an audit (AOM No. 001, Jan. 7, 2005) finding the GFPA without legal basis and recommending refund. DBP’s Executive Committee later approved an Amelioration Allowance (AA) (Execom Res. No. 0151, Nov. 16, 2005) and offset AA against amounts already paid as GFPA in certain ways.
COA issued Notice of Disallowance (ND No. LAS-OGC-2006-001, Dec. 18, 2006). DBP moved for reconsideration (Feb. 28, 2007), asserting the BOD’s charter powers (Sec. 9(e)) to compromise claims and Sec. 13 authority over compensation; and contending that the subsequent AA rendered the GFPA moot. COA’s Fraud Audit and Investigation Office treated the MR as appeal and upheld disallowance (Decision No. 2010-005, Oct. 7, 2010). DBP filed an internal Petition for Review (Jan. 21, 2011) to COA.
COA in Decision No. 2012-207 (Nov. 15, 2012) denied DBP’s Petition for Review, holding that the grant was ultra vires because monetary employee benefits are governed by law and cannot be the subject of compromise; COA rejected DBP’s due process claim and solutio indebiti defense. DBP’s MR was denied with finality (Dec. 6, 2013). DBP then filed the present petition for certiorari (Feb. 4, 2014). The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment (June 20, 2014). This Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (Sept. 16, 2014) restraining COA from en...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Commission on Audit act without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it disallowed the GFPA?
- If the COA’s disallowance is sustained, must DBP’s officials and employees refund the GF...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)