Case Digest (G.R. No. 128134)
Facts:
Fe D. Laysa, in her capacity as Regional Director of the Department of Agriculture, Regional Field Unit No. V, G.R. No. 128134, October 18, 2000, the Supreme Court En Banc, Purisima, J., writing for the Court. The petition challenges the Decision of the Commission on Audit (COA) dated November 12, 1996, which affirmed the Special Audit Office (SAO) Report of April 21, 1994 covering the Fishery Sector Program (FSP) Fund of the Department of Agriculture (DAR) Regional Office No. V for 1991–1992.On April 26, 1993, COA directed a special audit of the DAR Regional Office No. V focusing on (a) purchase of equipment, (b) training and catering services, and (c) accounts payable. The SAO Report found multiple irregularities: P3,247,494 in transactions for equipment, training and catering, construction of patrol boats, floating guard house and fish sanctuary markers were not subjected to bidding and lacked proper contracts or purchase orders (alleged violation of COA Circular No. 78-84); certain accounts payable lacked valid claims (alleged violation of Sec. 46, PD No. 1177); purchases of radio equipment were made without required permits from the National Telecommunications Commission (alleged violation of Act No. 3846); and honoraria for the first semester were paid without an appropriation.
The SAO recommended refund of disallowed disbursements and filing of administrative charges. On August 4, 1993, petitioner submitted a written justification admitting several facts but explaining them as exigencies of a specialized FSP (e.g., specialized scuba training procured by negotiated contract because local capability was lacking; use of sealed canvass for scuba equipment; late cross visits; oversight in securing permits; charging honoraria to FSP funds in the absence of regular releases). After the Review Panel found the SAO Report in order, COA Chairman Celso D. Gangan directed the COA Regional Director to bring charges before the Office of the Ombudsman on April 21, 1994.
Petitioner appealed to the COA en banc, which on November 12, 1996 denied her appeal. She then filed the present petition for certiorari challenging the COA decision, alleging grave abuse of discretion and arguing that the FSP — financed by the Asian Development Bank and the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fun...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the SAO findings and directing the filing of charges against petitioner and other officials?
- Does the special funding and research character of the Fishery Sector Program exempt DAR Regional Office No. V from compliance with applicable auditing, procurement,...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)