Title
Tetangco, Jr. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 244806
Decision Date
Sep 17, 2019
PICCI, a GOCC, granted per diems and RATA to its Board members, later disallowed by COA. SC upheld benefits as valid but limited per diems; petitioners held solidarity liable for disallowed amounts.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 244806)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Petition and COA Dispositions
    • Petition for Certiorari filed by BSP Governor Amando M. Tetangco, Jr., et al., assails:
      • COA Proper Decision No. 2017-020 (Feb 16, 2017) partially lifting per diem disallowance (P 1,000/meeting) but affirming disallowance of excess per diems, RATA, bonuses (net P 224,500).
      • COA Resolution (Sept 27, 2018) denying motion for reconsideration.
  • Establishment and Governance of PICCI
    • Presidential Decree No. 520 (1974) creates Philippine International Convention Center, managed by PICCI; BSP is sole stockholder.
    • PICCI Board: BSP Governor (Chair), Senior Deputy Governor (Vice Chair), and five Monetary Board–designated directors.
  • Compensation Policies and Payments
    • PICCI By-Laws Art. III, Sec. 8 (amended Oct 31, 2000): directors receive per diem and allowances as fixed by Board and BSP-MB.
    • BSP-MB Resolutions:
      • No. 1518 (Dec 7, 2006): per diem P 6,000 regular/P 7,000 executive.
      • No. 1901 (Dec 29, 2009): RATA P 10,000 monthly.
      • No. 1855 (Dec 23, 2010): per diem P 9,000 regular/P 9,500 executive.
    • PICCI paid petitioners P 618,500 (per diems, RATA, bonuses) for Jan 2010–Feb 2011.
  • COA Audit and Notices of Disallowance
    • ND No. 12-001-GF-(10&11) (Feb 28, 2012) disallowed the full P 618,500 as double compensation under Art. IX-B, Sec. 8 and E.O. No. 24.
    • COA-CGS Decision (Apr 30, 2014) affirmed disallowance, rejecting By-Laws as insufficient legal basis.
    • COA Proper Decision No. 2017-020 allowed P 1,000 per diem/meeting (per Singson precedent) but affirmed disallowance of excess per diems, RATA, bonuses.
    • Motion for Reconsideration denied (Sept 27, 2018).
  • Supreme Court Petition and Parties’ Contentions
    • Petitioners argue:
      • Benefits valid under By-Laws, Corp. Code Sec. 30, MB Resolutions, and Singson.
      • No double compensation; acted in good faith; MO 20/EO 24 inapplicable or non-retroactive.
      • New evidence (SEC certifications, Resolutions) admissible.
    • OSG contends:
      • COA jurisdiction proper; benefits unlawful double compensation; MO 20 and E.O. 24 applicable; new evidence inadmissible; Singson not controlling.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction and Status
    • Is PICCI a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) subject to COA audit?
  • Nature and Authority of Benefits
    • Do the per diems, RATA, and other bonuses constitute unauthorized or double compensation under Art. IX-B, Sec. 8?
    • Were increases in per diems and RATA validly authorized under applicable laws, By-Laws, and MB Resolutions?
  • Applicability of Pay Rationalization and Per Diem Rules
    • Does Memorandum Order No. 20 (rationalizing GOCC pay) bar the approved increases?
    • Does E.O. No. 24 (prescribing per diem approval) apply to benefits granted before Mar 21, 2011?
  • Evidence and Liability
    • Are newly submitted corporate and MB resolutions (SEC certification, Resolutions 1518, 1901, 1855) admissible in COA proceedings?
    • Are petitioners solidarily liable to refund the disallowed amounts?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

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

About Privacy Terms