Title
Gonzaga vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 244816
Decision Date
Jun 29, 2021
PICCI directors received unauthorized benefits despite net losses, violating Corporation Code. COA disallowed payments; Supreme Court upheld liability, absolving one petitioner.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 200180)

Facts:

  • Background of PICCI: The Philippine International Convention Center, Inc. (PICCI) is a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) created under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 520, with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as its sole stockholder. Its governing powers are vested in a Board of Directors, which has the authority to promulgate rules and regulations, including compensation for directors.
  • Compensation Rules: PICCI's 1994 By-Laws initially provided that directors would not receive salaries but only per diems for meetings attended. This was amended in 2000 to allow for per diems and allowances, subject to approval by the Monetary Board.
  • Petitioners' Roles: Petitioners include members of the Board of Directors (Lim, Ong, Quirino, Villanueva, and Tuason), the Corporate Secretary (Gonzaga), the Director of the Administrative Department (Berciles), and the Comptroller (Bernardo, Jr.).
  • Disallowed Benefits: For the calendar years 2010 and 2011, the Board of Directors received various benefits, including Representation Allowance, Medical Reimbursement, Christmas Bonus, and Anniversary Bonus, totaling P882,902.06. These payments were made despite PICCI incurring net losses in 2009 and 2010.
  • Audit Findings: The Commission on Audit (COA) issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) for these payments, citing violations of Section 30 of the Corporation Code, which limits directors' compensation to 10% of the corporation's net income from the preceding year. Since PICCI had no net income, the payments were deemed irregular.
  • Petitioners' Defense: Petitioners argued that Section 30 of the Corporation Code applies only to close corporations, that the benefits were approved by the Monetary Board, and that they acted in good faith, thus should not be required to refund the amounts.
  • COA Rulings: The COA Director and the COA Commission Proper upheld the disallowance, ruling that the payments lacked legal basis and violated the Corporation Code. They also rejected the claim of good faith, citing the principle of solutio indebiti, which requires the return of improperly disbursed funds.

Issues:

  • Whether the payment of Representation Allowance, Medical Reimbursement, Christmas Bonus, and Anniversary Bonus to the members of the Board of Directors of PICCI for CYs 2010 and 2011 violated Section 30 of the Corporation Code.
  • Whether petitioners acted in good faith in receiving and approving the disallowed benefits, and thus should not be required to refund the amounts.
  • Whether the COA properly disallowed the payments and held petitioners solidarily liable for the refund of the disallowed amounts.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.