Case Digest (G.R. No. 218463) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Bayani F. Fernando v. Commission on Audit, G.R. Nos. 237938 & 237944–45, decided November 11, 2019, petitioner Bayani Fernando, former Chairman of the Metro Manila Film Festival (MMFF) Executive Committee (2002–2008), assailed Fraud Audit Office Notices of Finality of Decision Nos. 2017-008 to 2017-010 (November 27, 2017) and Notices of Disallowance Nos. 2010-05-032 to 2010-05-034 (May 24, 2010) issued by the Commission on Audit (COA). After an August 17, 2009 Office Order directing a special audit on the MMFF disbursements, the COA found that Fernando received three P1,000,000 disbursements in 2003 and 2005 from advertising sponsorships and non-tax revenues of the MMFF Executive Committee for MMDA cultural projects without official receipts. The COA disallowed these payments for violating GAAM Section 77 and GAAM Volume I, Section 168, and ordered recovery of P3,000,000. Fernando filed a petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65, contending that the MMFF Executive Co... Case Digest (G.R. No. 218463) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner Bayani F. Fernando served as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Metro Manila Film Festival (MMFF) from 2002 to 2008.
- The Commission on Audit (COA) issued Office Order No. 2009-602 (Aug. 17, 2009) directing a special audit of MMFF disbursements for Calendar Years 2002–2008.
- Audit Findings and COA Issuances
- The Fraud Audit and Investigation Office found that petitioner received three payments of ₱1,000,000 each (May 20 and 30, 2003; March 15, 2005) without official receipts, violating GAAM provisions.
- COA issued Notices of Disallowance (ND Nos. 2010-05-032 to ‑034, May 24, 2010) disallowing ₱3,000,000 and, later, FAO Notices of Finality of Decision (FAO NFD Nos. 2017-008 to ‑010, Nov. 27, 2017) ordering recovery.
- Petition for Certiorari
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, before the Supreme Court (Dec. 4, 2018).
- He argued COA lacked jurisdiction over the MMFF Executive Committee—an allegedly private body funded by non-tax revenues—and that he did not have to exhaust administrative remedies.
Issues:
- Whether the Executive Committee of the MMFF is subject to COA audit jurisdiction.
- Whether COA properly disallowed and demanded recovery of the ₱3,000,000 payments as public funds.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)