Case Digest (G.R. No. 244193)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 244193)
Facts:
National Transmission Corporation v. Commission on Audit (COA) and COA Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 244193, November 10, 2020, Supreme Court En Banc, Delos Santos, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) is a GOCC created under RA 9136 which paid its officials Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) in 2010 pursuant to RA 9970 (the GAA for 2010). On June 1, 2011, Supervising Auditor Corazon V. Espano issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 11-58-(2010), disallowing P1,841,165.44 in EME on the ground that payments were commutable and lacked receipts, contrary to COA Circular No. 2006-001 (Item III requiring receipts or other documents evidencing disbursements).
TransCo appealed to the COA Corporate Government Sector (COA-CGS). In Decision No. 2014-16 (Sept. 17, 2014), the COA-CGS Cluster Director granted TransCo’s appeal and lifted the ND, reasoning that a certification could be accepted (citing COA Circular No. 89-300 applicable to NGAs) and that uniformity of amounts did not prove commutability. On automatic review, COA Proper reversed in Decision No. 2017-115 (Apr. 26, 2017), sustaining the ND and holding that certifications do not satisfy Item III because they do not evidence the paying out of an account payable, and concluding the payments were commutable; it found liable the officials who authorized/payees.
TransCo’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Jan. 23, 2018) and a Notice of Finality was issued (Aug. 6, 2019). TransCo filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing COA Decision No. 2017-115. TransCo moved for injunctive relief to suspend execution; COA maintained that COA rules allow execution to proceed absent a Court order. The parties litigated principally whether the burden of proof lay with TransCo and whether the doctrine of good faith absolved recipients and approving officers from return liability.
Issues:
- Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion in placing on TransCo the burden to prove that the EME payments were non-commutable and properly supported?
- Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that the doctrine of good faith was inapplicable to absolve recipients and approving/certifying officers from liability for return of the disallowed amounts?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)