Case Digest (G.R. No. 210571)
Facts:
Orestes S. Miralles v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 210571, September 19, 2017, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Orestes S. Miralles, then Regional Assistant Vice-President of Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation (QUEDANCOR), sought review of COA administrative determinations that he was personally liable under two Notices of Disallowance (NDs): ND No. RLAO-2005-052 (P3,092,900.00) for delinquent loans under the Sugar Farm Modernization (SFM) Program, and ND No. RLAO-2005-055 (P4,450,000.00) for loans under the Food and Agricultural Retail Enterprises (FARE) Program.QUEDANCOR was a government financing institution created by Republic Act No. 7393 to accelerate rural credit and investment, operating programs (including SFM and FARE) under board-issued policies and implementing guidelines (e.g., Circular No. 102, Series of 1999 for SFM; Circular No. 079, Series of 1997 for FARE). COA audit work began with an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) of September 24, 2003 noting failures to collect SFM loans. The COA Regional Legal Adjudication Office (RLAO) issued ND No. RLAO-2005-052 on April 7, 2005 holding Miralles (for approving loans) and other QUEDANCOR officers (for failing to verify documents) personally liable for uncollected SFM loans.
A COA Special Audit Team (SAT) later found that some FARE borrowers never engaged in the retail businesses required by the program. Based on these findings, RLAO issued ND No. RLAO-2005-055 on June 6, 2005 disallowing loans to various borrowers and naming Miralles as approving authority. Miralles appealed, arguing that he approved loans pursuant to QUEDANCOR guidelines and recommendations of subordinate Quedan Operations Officers (QOOs), and that the Arias doctrine insulated him where he reasonably relied on subordinates.
The COA Legal Services Sector (LSS) denied exclusion from liability in LSS Decision No. 2010-022 (June 4, 2010), affirming both NDs. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Commission on Audit gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming ND No. RLAO-2005-052 dated April 7, 2005 (SFM loans) and holding petitioner personally liable?
- Did the Commission on Audit gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming ND No. RLAO-2005-055 dated June 6, 2005 (FARE loans) as to the validity of the disallowance?
- If ND No. RLAO-2005-055 was valid, should petitioner nonetheless be relieved of pers...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)