G.R. No. 226846 - People vs. Macaranas y Ferdez

National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) is a government‐owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) created in June 2001 under Republic Act No. 9136 to assume the electrical transmission functions of the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR).
The disbursement under scrutiny involves Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) paid to TransCo officials on various dates in 2010 pursuant to Republic Act No. 9970 (the 2010 General Appropriations Act).

On June 1, 2011, Supervising Auditor Corazon V. EspaAo along with Audit Team Leader Minerva T. Cabigting issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 11-58-(2010) disallowing EME payments totaling ₱1,841,165.44.
The ND basing its decision on the fact that the EME payments were made on a commutable basis without adequate receipts or supporting documents, in violation of Item III of COA Circular No. 2006-001, which mandates that claims for reimbursement be supported by receipts and/or other documents evidencing an actual disbursement.

TransCo contested the ND by appealing to the COA Corporate Government Sector (COA-CGS).
In Decision No. 2014-16 dated September 17, 2014, the COA-CGS granted the appeal and lifted the ND, reasoning that a certification could serve as a supporting document for EME reimbursements. This decision was based on the practice in National Government Agencies (NGAs) as set forth in COA Circular No. 89-300, which allows for such certifications.

On April 26, 2017, upon automatic review, COA rendered Decision No. 2017-115 disapproving the earlier COA-CGS ruling.
The COA held that the mere "certification" submitted by TransCo did not satisfy the requirement to evidence an actual disbursement, as stipulated in COA Circular No. 2006-001, and thus sustained the ND disallowing the claimed EME payments.

TransCo filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated January 23, 2018.
On August 6, 2019, the Commission Secretary issued Notice of Finality of Decision, prompting TransCo to request a suspension of its effects while the petition for certiorari was pending.
TransCo further advanced a Motion for Issuance of a Status Quo Ante Order and/or Preliminary Injunction on January 3, 2020 to enjoin the execution of the COA decision and related resolution.

The certification used in lieu of receipts should be acceptable since it is consistent with practices in NGAs under COA Circular No. 89-300;
The burden of proof should not solely rest on them to prove that payments were made on a non-commutable basis; and
The officials acted in good faith without any intent of malice, implying that mere errors of judgment should not render them liable.

The burden to prove that the EME were incurred on a non-commutable (reimbursable) basis lies with TransCo;
The lack of receipts or documents that properly evidence an actual disbursement conclusively showed that the expenses were paid on a commutable basis; and
Public officials, by virtue of their position, are expected to be conversant with the law, eliminating the defense of good faith if basic documentary requirements are not met.

COA Circular No. 2006-001 provides the guidelines for the disbursement of EME for GOCCs, mandating that reimbursements be supported by receipts or documents evidencing disbursement and that such payments be strictly non-commutable.
The distinction between the reimbursement practices for GOCCs versus National Government Agencies (NGAs) is emphasized, as the latter may rely on certifications under COA Circular No. 89-300, a flexibility not extended to GOCCs.

Whether TransCo should bear the burden of proving that the EME payments were not made on a commutable basis.
Whether the requirement for additional supporting documents (beyond a certification) is correctly imposed on TransCo given the rules stipulated in COA Circular No. 2006-001.

Whether dismissing the defense of good faith for the approving/certifying officers constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
Whether, in the absence of gross negligence or malice, the use of mere certifications should exempt the officers from liability for the disallowed amounts.