Case Digest (G.R. No. 108310)
Facts:
In Rufino O. Eslao v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 108310, September 01, 1994, the Supreme Court En Banc, Feliciano, J., writing for the Court, resolved a dispute over the proper compensation guideline for honoraria and per diems claimed by Pangasinan State University personnel who performed an evaluation for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.Petitioner Rufino O. Eslao, in his capacity as President of Pangasinan State University (PSU), sought review of Commission on Audit (COA) Decisions Nos. 1547 (1990) and 2571 (1992) which disallowed most of the honoraria paid under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between PSU and the DENR dated 9 December 1988. Under the MOA PSU agreed to evaluate eleven DENR reforestation operations; the MOA and Project Proposal identified experts, support staff, durations and a budget estimate. DENR issued a Notice to Proceed on 9 December 1988; BOR approval and initial vouchers followed in January–February 1989.
A COA resident auditor issued a Notice of Disallowance on 6 July 1989, disallowing P64,925 of Voucher No. 8902007 on the ground that Compensation Policy Guidelines (CPG) No. 80-4 (7 Aug 1980) — which sets lower honoraria rates — applied. PSU sought reconsideration and requested guidance from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). By letter dated 10 November 1989 DBM clarified that honoraria for this activity should be governed by National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 53 (21 June 1988) because the project formed part of the ADB/OECF Forestry Sector Program Loan and thus was a foreign-assisted project (FAP).
Notwithstanding DBM’s clarification and a DENR certification that the evaluation was a component of the ADB/OECF loan, COA issued Decision No. 1547 (18 Sept 1990) denying reconsideration and holding CPG No. 80-4 applicable; COA later issued Decision No. 2571 (16 Nov 1992) again denying reconsideration. DENR accepted PSU’s final reports in December 1990 and disbursements were made in accordance with NCC No. 53 for January 1989–January 1990, but a COA resident auditor subsequently issued a Certificate of Settlement and Balances (29 Dec 1992) reflecting disallowances and demanding settlement.
PSU petitioned the Supreme Court by way of a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside COA’s decisions, to have COA pass in audit payments based on NCC No. 53, and to recover moral and legal damages; the Office of the Solicitor General manifested in support of pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion in applying CPG No. 80-4 instead of NCC No. 53, thereby improperly disallowing PSU honoraria?
- Was the DENR/PSU evaluation project a “special project” within the meaning of CPG No. 80-4?
- Is the DBM clarification that the evaluation is a foreign-assisted project and that NCC No. 53 applies controlling or otherwise entitled to deference?
- Was the evaluation project’s duration implicitly extended so as to justify payment of honoraria beyond the durations stated in the MOA/Project Proposal?
- Are moral dama...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)