Case Digest (G.R. No. 213425)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 213425)
Facts:
Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) v. Commission on Audit (COA), G.R. Nos. 213425 and 216606, April 27, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner PSALM, a GOCC created under Republic Act No. 9136 (EPIRA), reimbursed Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) to officers and employees beginning in 2002 using claimant certifications as proof of disbursement in reliance on Section 397(c) of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM) and COA Circular No. 89-300. In 2006 the Commission on Audit (COA) issued COA Circular No. 2006-001, which required receipts or other documents evidencing disbursements and, by 2008, auditors reminded PSALM that certifications were no longer an acceptable alternative.
PSALM nevertheless continued similar reimbursements for 2008 and 2009. COA issued Notice of Suspension (NS) and subsequently ND No. 09-004-(08) dated December 28, 2009 disallowing 2008 EME reimbursements totaling P2,385,334.06 and making approving/certifying officers and payees liable. PSALM appealed to COA Corporate Government Sector (CGS) Cluster B (Memorandum on Appeal), which denied relief in Decision No. 2010-012 (Nov. 25, 2010). PSALM then appealed to the COA Proper; Decision No. 2013-229 (Dec. 23, 2013) affirmed the 2008 ND. PSALM failed to file a motion for reconsideration or certiorari within the prescribed period, and a Notice of Finality dated March 6, 2014 issued; its subsequent Motion for Relief from Judgment was denied by the COA Proper in a Resolution dated November 20, 2014.
Separately, COA issued ND No. 10-005-(2009) dated August 9, 2010 disallowing 2009 EME reimbursements totaling P2,615,500.79. PSALM appealed to COA CGS (Decision No. 2011-004, Apr. 13, 2011) which denied the appeal; the COA Proper likewise denied PSALM’s Petition for Review in Decision No. 2013-228 (Dec. 23, 2013) and denied PSALM’s Motion for Reconsideration in Resolution dated April 4, 2014.
PSALM filed consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (G.R. No. 213425 challenging Decision No. 2013-228 and its April 4, 2014 Resolution; G.R. No. 216606 challenging Resolution dated November 20, 2014). PSALM raised (a) a due process complaint for issuance of the 2009 ND without an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM); (b) that COA Circular No. 2006-001 did not apply to PSALM because it derived EME authority from the GAA and thus could rely on GAAM/COA Circular No. 89-300 certifications; (c) an equal protection claim arising from alleged differential treatment of NPC and TransCo; and (d) good-faith defenses and challenges to the liability of approving officers and recipients.
Issues:
- Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion by issuing the 2009 EME Notice of Disallowance without first issuing an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM)?
- Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion in denying PSALM’s Motion for Relief from Judgment and declaring COA Proper Decision No. 2013-229 final and executory?
- Did the COA commit grave abuse of discretion in (a) applying COA Circular No. 2006-001 to PSALM; (b) ruling that certifications do not substantially comply with documentary requirements under COA Circular No. 2006-001; (c) violating the equal protection clause by differential application to other GOCCs/NGAs; and (d) holding approving/certifying officers and recipients liable to refund the disallowed EME amounts?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)