Title
Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 92585
Decision Date
May 8, 1992
The Supreme Court upheld COA’s authority, disallowing Caltex’s OPSF claims for unsubstantiated reimbursements and prohibiting offsetting remittances, emphasizing public purpose and strict tax exemption construction.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 92585)

Procedural and Remedial Posture

CPI filed a petition under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, which this Court treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The misdesignation of remedy was excused due to the grave issues presented. This Court’s jurisdiction is grounded on Sec. 2, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution.

Relevant Statutory Framework (OPSF Creation and Purpose)

Section 8 of P.D. No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No. 137, created the OPSF to stabilize domestic petroleum prices. Its sources include ad valorem tax increments and other imposts, and its uses cover reimbursement for cost increases and underrecoveries resulting from mandated price reductions, as determined by the Department of Finance (DOF).

Factual Background and COA Actions

Between February and March 1989, COA letters directed CPI to remit over P1.28 billion in unremitted OPSF imposts and held all reimbursement claims in abeyance. CPI requested early issuance of reimbursement certificates, which COA denied, insisting on full remittance before audit.

Legal Issuances and Proposals by Caltex

CPI proposed simultaneous remittance and reimbursement arrangements, accepted in part by COA Decision No. 921 (June 7, 1989), subject to retention of 15% for audit adjustments and a ban on future off-setting. COA later computed P1.505 billion due and P1.959 billion payable after disallowances.

COA Decisions No. 921 and No. 1171 and Grounds for Disallowance

In Decision No. 1171 (Feb. 16, 1990), COA affirmed disallowance of financing charges, inventory losses, and sales to Atlas/Marcopper, but allowed export-related product sales. Disallowances were based on a narrow reading of P.D. No. 1956 and on COA’s independent audit findings.

Issues Presented for Review

CPI assigned five errors: (1) disallowance of financing charges; (2) disallowance of underrecovery on sales to the National Power Corporation (NPC); (3) disallowance of claims on sales to ATLAS/Marcopper; (4) prohibition on offsetting remittances; and (5) disallowance of claims still pending before the OEA and DOF.

Constitutional Authority of the Commission on Audit

Under Sec. 2(1) and (2), Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, COA has exclusive authority to examine, audit, and settle all government accounts and to promulgate regulations to prevent and disallow irregular, unnecessary, or excessive expenditures. Its power to enforce accounting rules is broader than under prior constitutions.

Recovery of Financing Charges from the OPSF

The Court held that “other factors” in cost underrecovery (Sec. 8, P.D. 1956, as amended) must be analogous to mandated price reductions under ejusdem generis. Financing charges stem from extended trade credit, not price cuts, and thus fall outside the Fund’s purposes. Inclusion of financing charges requires legislative amendment.

Reimbursement for Underrecovery on NPC Sales

CPI’s underrecovery claims on sales to NPC were allowed. NPC enjoyed full tax and impost exemptions by law and regulatory board resolutions, and Republic Act No. 6952 explicitly authorizes OPSF reimbursement for fuel underrecoveries to NPC.

Claims Related to Atlas and Marcopper Sales

LOI 1416 (July 17, 1984) suspending certain mining taxes was never published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation and cannot exempt CPI from OPSF imposts. Tax exemptions

...continue reading

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