Case Digest (G.R. No. 218052)
Facts:
National Power Corporation Board of Directors Messrs. Margarito B. Teves, Ronaldo V. Puno, Jose L. Atienza, Augusto B. Santos, Peter B. Favila, Arthur C. Yap, Rolando G. Andaya, Froilan A. Tampinco, and Various Payees of the National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 218052, January 26, 2021, Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners sought relief from the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, assailing Commission on Audit (COA) Decision No. 2015-108 dated April 6, 2015, which dismissed petitioners’ Petition for Review for being filed out of time and affirmed COA Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. NPC 12-007 (09,10) dated October 15, 2012.In December 2009 the NPC Board ratified Board Resolution No. 2009-72 granting Calendar Year (CY) 2009 Performance Incentive Benefits (PIB) equivalent to five and one-half months’ basic salary to various NPC officials and employees. NPC President and CEO Froilan A. Tampinco issued NPC Circular No. 2009-58 to implement the grant, and P327,272,424.91 was disbursed. On February 15, 2012 the COA Audit Team issued a Notice of Suspension and later, on October 15, 2012, ND No. NPC 12-007 disallowing the PIB on two grounds: (1) lack of presidential approval required by Section 3 of Administrative Order No. 103 (AO No. 103) and (2) that the grant was extravagant under Section 3.4 of COA Circular No. 85-55A, noting NPC-SPUG’s net loss of P2.874 billion in CY 2009.
Tampinco received the ND on October 23, 2012; the NPC filed an appeal to the COA Corporate Government Sector (CGS) Cluster 3 Public Utilities on April 11, 2013. In that appeal NPC argued, inter alia, that presidential authorization existed by virtue of Memorandum Order No. 198 (MO No. 198) (issued in 1994 pursuant to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7648) and that the NPC Board members, being cabinet secretaries, were the President’s alter egos. COA CGS denied the appeal in Decision No. 2014-03 dated February 28, 2014, affirming the ND in full. Petitioners received the CGS decision on March 14, 2014 and filed a Petition for Review to the COA Proper on March 26, 2014; the COA Proper dismissed that Petition for Review in Decision No. 2015-108 (April 6, 2015) for being filed beyond the reglementary six-month period under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 (PD No. 1445) and applicable COA Rules, thereby rendering the ND final and executory.
Petitioners then filed the present petition with this Court, alleging (among other contentions) that the appeal period never began to run as petitioners were not individually served with the ND (constructive service upon Tampinco was improper because the ND imposed personal liability), and that on the merits MO No. 198 or the NPC Board’s approval validated the PIB and that the grant was not extravagant. COA replied that the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did COA commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for being filed beyond the reglementary period?
- Did COA commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disallowance of the PIB on grounds of lack of presidential approval and extravagance?
- If the disallowance is upheld, did COA commit grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioners liable t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)