Case Digest (G.R. No. 239936)
Facts:
National Housing Authority (NHA), represented herein by its General Manager, Marcelino P. Escalada, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 239936 and National Housing Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 252584, June 21, 2022, Supreme Court En Banc, Rosario, J., writing for the Court. The Petitions are consolidated challenges to Commission on Audit (COA) rulings: a Rule 64/65 certiorari petition (G.R. No. 239936) assailing COA Commission Proper Decision No. 2018-124 (Jan. 26, 2018) in COA CP Case No. 2015-013, and an injunction/TRO petition (G.R. No. 252584) seeking to set aside COA’s Notice of Finality (Mar. 4, 2020).The COA Special Audit Team, created by Office Order No. 2010-043, audited NHA disbursements for calendar years 2008–2009 and issued seven Notices of Disallowance (NDs) (dated Jan. 5 and Feb. 1, 2012) totaling P367,844,754.36. The NDs questioned payments of Cash Incentive/SONA Incentive Award, economic subsidy, Christmas and Citation Bonuses, Mid-Year Financial Assistance (MYFA), meal/children’s/rice subsidies, and Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA). Named liable were former General Manager Federico A. Laxa, several NHA managers and officers (for approval, certification or disbursement), members of the NHA Board of Directors (BOD) for approving and receiving benefits, and rank-and-file employees as recipients.
Multiple appeal memoranda were filed; the COA CGS-Cluster 2 Director consolidated and denied the appeals in Decision No. 2015-013 (Aug. 13, 2015), affirming the NDs. The NHA petitioned the COA Commission Proper (timely filed Sept. 1, 2015). The Commission Proper likewise denied relief in Decision No. 2018-124, affirming the disallowances in full. Thereafter the NHA filed the petitions before the Supreme Court (certiorari/injunction), later amending its petition to correct which NDs were being assailed; the petitioners also sought a TRO/preliminary injunction (the Court later denied the TRO motion in a separate resolution).
The petitioners argued the grants were lawful (invoking LOI No. 97, PD No. 757 Sec. 10, EO No. 292 Sec. 35, collective negotiation agreements (CNA), presidential approvals for MYFA, long-standing practice/non-diminution of benefits, and the alter ego doctrine as Cabinet Secretaries sat ex officio on the BOD), and that recipients acted in good faith so as not to be required to refund. The COA and later the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contended the payments violated the standardized compensation regime under R.A....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the COA Commission Proper act without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it affirmed the Notices of Disallowance in Decision No. 2018-124 (J...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)