Title
Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 169752
Decision Date
Sep 25, 2007
The PSPCA, a private corporation promoting animal welfare, was ruled not subject to COA audit jurisdiction, as it lacks government control and functions.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21551)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Petition and challenged acts
    • The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA) filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, Rollo 14.
    • PSPCA assailed COA Office Order No. 2005-021 (Sept. 14, 2005) and COA letter of Sept. 23, 2005, directing an audit survey of its accounts and operations.
  • Origin and charter of PSPCA
    • Incorporated by Act No. 1285 (Jan. 19, 1905) as a body politic and corporate to enforce anti-cruelty laws and promote animal welfare.
    • Original charter (Secs. 4–5) authorized appointment of agents with police powers to arrest violators and entitled PSPCA to one-half of fines collected.
  • Legislative amendments and executive order
    • Commonwealth Act No. 148 (Nov. 8, 1936) amended Sec. 4: stripped arrest powers; Sec. 2: abolished PSPCA’s share of fines, directing all fines to municipal funds.
    • Executive Order No. 63 (Nov. 12, 1936) vested enforcement of animal-cruelty laws exclusively in government police forces.
  • COA audit attempts and PSPCA’s objections
    • COA Office Order No. 2003-051 (Nov. 18, 2003) initiated an audit survey; PSPCA demurred, invoking Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution claiming private status.
    • COA General Counsel issued memoranda (May 6, July 13, 2004) reaffirming PSPCA’s subjection to COA audit jurisdiction.
    • COA scheduled an audit survey under Office Order No. 2005-021 and the Sept. 23, 2005 letter; PSPCA filed the present petition.

Issues:

  • Whether PSPCA is a government agency or instrumentality subject to COA audit jurisdiction.
    • Does PSPCA’s special charter and history confer public-corporation status?
    • Did amendments erode PSPCA’s governmental character?
  • Ancillary questions:
    • Effect of the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions and the Corporation Law on PSPCA’s status.
    • Validity of PSPCA’s authority to impose or share in fines under its charter.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.