G.R. No. 178034 - McBurnie vs. Ganzon

The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), a government financial institution, issued Circular No. 10 on March 7, 2005.
This Circular authorized the computation of the money value of leave credits (MVLC) of DBP officials and employees based on their gross monthly cash compensation, which included basic salary, officer's allowance, representation and transportation allowances, personnel economic relief allowances, additional compensation, meal, children's, and family allowances, including longevity pay.

On February 28, 2007, COA issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) disallowing the payment of MVLC computed on the gross monthly compensation.

DBP sought reconsideration, but the Supervising Auditor denied it on grounds the salaries lacked requisite approval from the Office of the President and Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
DBP filed an appeal before the COA Cluster Director and submitted a Memorandum of Appeal on August 24, 2009.
DBP notified COA that then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) approved DBP's Compensation Plan, allegedly including Circular No. 10.

Affirmed the disallowance of MVLC payment.
Held that passive recipients were not liable to refund amounts received in good faith.
Imposed liability on DBP's Board of Directors and officers who approved the payment, ruling their actions were discretionary.
Declared PGMA's approval invalid because it was made 18 days before the May 10, 2010 national elections, violating the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) which prohibits salary increases within 45 days before an election.

Decision No. 2022-072 (January 24, 2022) denied DBP's motion for reconsideration:

Modified prior ruling by requiring even passive recipients to refund disallowed amounts regardless of good faith.

Held that DBP was not denied due process.
Ruled COA violated DBP's right to speedy disposition due to an 11-year delay in resolving the appeal and motion for reconsideration.
Found no res judicata with a prior 2021 DBP-COA case.
Declared DBP Circular No. 10 inconsistent with the Omnibus Rules on Leave and related CSC and DBM circulars, which require MVLC computation based on basic pay only.
Asserted DBP's Board powers must comply with laws and regulations.
Found PGMA's approval of the Compensation Plan invalid due to prohibited timing under the OEC.
Excused DBP Board and officials from refunding the disallowed amount due to good faith reliance on Section 13 of DBP's Revised Charter.
Absolved MVLC recipients from refunding based on undue prejudice caused by COA's violation of speedy disposition rights.

DBP argued that the right to speedy disposition violation should nullify the NDs entirely.
DBP claimed COA lacked power to determine the validity of PGMA's approval, asserting it falls under COMELEC's jurisdiction.

Whether COA Decision No. 2018-197 and Decision No. 2022-072 should be set aside due to COA's violation of DBP's constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.
Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion by ruling on the validity of PGMA's post facto approval of DBP's Compensation Plan.