G.R. No. 199114 - Dimapilis-Baldoz vs. Commission on Audit

Petitioner: Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, in her capacity as then Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Respondent: Commission on Audit (COA), represented by Chairman Reynaldo A. Villar and Commissioner Juanito G. Espino, Jr.
Nature of the Case: A petition for certiorari assailing a COA decision which affirmed a Notice of Disallowance, directing the petitioner to refund the government the amount of ₱1,740,124.08 paid as salaries and benefits to Leonel P. Labrador despite his adjudged dismissal from service.

Labrador served as the Chief of the POEA Employment Services Regulation Division (ESRD).
He continued to receive salaries and benefits despite adverse administrative and criminal proceedings.

On May 2, 1997, then Labor Secretary Leonardo A. Quisumbing ordered Labrador’s dismissal for having bribed an overseas Filipino worker for the expedited issuance of her employment certificate.
The dismissal was later affirmed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) through Resolution No. 03-0339 (dated March 12, 2003) and his motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied.

A criminal case for direct bribery was instituted against Labrador.
On August 31, 1999, the Sandiganbayan (SB) convicted him, imposing an indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor to prision correccional, a fine, temporary special disqualification from public office, and costs.
Labrador’s motions for reconsideration and further relief in the criminal case were denied, leading to finality of the conviction.

In February 2001, Labrador applied for probation under Presidential Decree No. 968 (as amended by PD 1990).
The Sandiganbayan granted probation on September 28, 2001, temporarily suspending execution proceedings and cancelling his bail bond.
At the end of his probation, instead of terminating the probation as recommended, the SB issued a Resolution on March 2, 2004, stating that the grant of probation was erroneous because it contravened the procedural prohibition against granting probation when a conviction is being appealed.

On March 9, 2004, Dimapilis-Baldoz, as POEA Administrator, received the SB’s March 2, 2004 Resolution.
Consequently, she issued a Notice/Order of Separation on March 11, 2004, formally relieving Labrador of his duties.

On February 7, 2005, COA Auditor Crescencia L. Escurel issued an Audit Observation Memorandum against the payment of salaries and benefits to Labrador covering the period from August 31, 1999, to March 15, 2004.
The memorandum noted that government funds were disbursed when Labrador was, by law, no longer entitled to receive them, given his status following administrative dismissal and criminal conviction.

Based on the audit findings, the COA issued a Notice of Disallowance on January 18, 2006, holding Dimapilis-Baldoz and other POEA employees personally liable for the payments, amounting to ₱1,740,124.08.
Dimapilis-Baldoz sought reconsideration arguing that Labrador’s employment had been terminated as of March 2, 2004.
On October 29, 2009, the COA reaffirmed its position in Decision No. 2009-121, emphasizing that payments should not have been made since Labrador had been effectively dismissed, and that the reckoning period should not extend beyond when his conviction was confirmed as final.

The POEA filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 26, 2010, seeking to contest the COA’s decision.
POEA Administrator Jennifer Jardin-Manalili requested that execution of the COA Decision be held in abeyance pending a resolution on the merits.
The COA, however, indicated that the decision had become final and executory, leaving Dimapilis-Baldoz to seek judicial relief through certiorari.

Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of its Notice of Disallowance by:

Erroneously reckoning the period of disallowance for salary and benefit payments to Labrador starting from May 3, 2000 instead of from his actual administrative dismissal on May 2, 1997.
Holding Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz personally liable for the alleged irregular disbursements even though she acted in good faith based on available records and official orders.