Case Digest (G.R. No. 232272)
Facts:
Secretary Mario G. Montejo v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 232272, July 24, 2018, Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Secretary Mario G. Montejo, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST); the respondents are the Commission on Audit (COA) and the Director, National Government Sector, Cluster B—General Public Services II and Defense, COA.
During calendar years (CY) 2010 and 2011, the DOST released Collective Negotiation Agreement Incentives (CNA Incentives) to officers and employees totaling PHP 10,644,705.28 (PHP 5,870,883.79 for CY 2010 and PHP 4,773,821.49 for CY 2011) across several disbursements, including mid-year payments and year-end payments to named payees and to groups labeled “DOST Officers and Employees.”
On June 27, 2011, an Audit Observation Memorandum from the Office of the Auditor, COA, identified alleged deficiencies in the grant of CNA Incentives—lack of DOST Management/SIKAT written resolution; absence of proof that incentives were tied to identified cost‑cutting measures as required by Administrative Order No. 135; predetermination of amounts in the CNA contrary to Budget Circular No. 2006‑1; mid‑year payments in contravention of Section 5.7 of Budget Circular No. 2006‑1; and grant to managerial officers contrary to several rules.
Petitioner submitted a Letter‑Reply (July 11, 2011) with supporting documents. Nonetheless, State Auditors issued two Notices of Disallowance dated November 17 and 18, 2011, disallowing the CNA payments as violative of PSLMC Resolution No. 4 (2002), DBM Budget Circular No. 2006‑1 (2006), and Administrative Order No. 135 (2005).
Petitioner administratively appealed to COA’s National Government Sector (NGS), Cluster B. The NGS Decision dated October 4, 2012 denied the appeal and affirmed the two Notices of Disallowance (PHP 5,870,883.79 and PHP 4,773,821.49). Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the COA En Banc, which on October 18, 2016 denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the Notices of Disallowance totaling PHP 10,644,705.28. The COA En Banc found violations of DBM Budget Circular No. 2006‑1 (notably Sections 5.7, 7.1, and 7.1.1), failure to show that payments were sourced solely from savings evidenced by a comparative statement of DBM‑approved versus actual operating expenses, and imposed solidary liability on approving officers while holding payees liable under solutio indebiti principles.
Petitioner sought further review before the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 64, assailing COA’s September 26, 20...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Commission on Audit err in affirming the Notices of Disallowance and thereby improperly disallow the DOST’s grant of CNA Incentives for CY 2010 and 2011?
- If the disallowances are valid, are the petitioner, the other approving officers, and the DOST employees personally liable to refund the disallowed amounts, or does the defense of good fa...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)