Title
Supreme Court
Ablong vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 233308
Decision Date
Aug 18, 2020
Teachers unaware of disallowed allowances; COA failed to notify them, violating due process. Supreme Court remanded case for proper appeal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233308)

Undisputed Facts

In 2008, the NORSU Board of Regents passed a resolution granting ERAs of P25,000 to its personnel, which continued for two additional years at P30,000 each. In January 2011, the COA Audit Team issued several NDs due to the absence of approval from the President of the Philippines and the improper funding source, which was derived from tuition and other school charges. These notices, delivered to the NORSU Acting Chief Accountant on February 16, 2011, were not appealed. Consequently, a Notice of Finality of Decision (NFD) was issued on August 31, 2011, followed by an Order of Execution (COE) on November 23, 2011.

Petition and Denial

On January 18, 2012, petitioner Ablong requested reconsideration for the enforcement of the COE, claiming lack of prior notice regarding the disallowance. COA Regional Director Aguilar denied this request on February 7, 2012, citing procedural rules. This led the petitioners to file a Petition for Review which the COA dismissed on July 28, 2016, asserting the appeal period had already lapsed and deemed the petition improper.

Legal Arguments

The petitioners contended that the COA exhibited grave abuse of discretion by upholding the NFDs and COEs without ensuring that they received actual service of the NDs. They argued their due process rights were violated as they only became aware of the disallowance in November or December 2011. Furthermore, they claimed good faith in receiving the allowances, arguing they should not be liable for repayment since they were not involved in the decision-making process.

COA's Position

The COA defended its actions by asserting that service to the Acting Chief Accountant constituted constructive notice to all employees. They maintained that the petitioners had access to audit reports disclosing the prior warnings regarding the illegality of the allowance. The COA argued that under the law, all recipients of disallowed amounts are jointly liable for repayment, regardless of their involvement in the decision to grant the allowances.

Court's Ruling

The Court found merit in the petitioners' claims. It noted the COA failed to properly notify the petitioners of the NDs, which is a prerequisite for due process. The Court emphasized that the lack of notific

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.