Case Summary (G.R. No. 244806)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioners: Tetangco, Suratos, Zuniga, Bernardo, Berciles, Mangila, Martin (PICCI board members and officers)
Respondent: Commission on Audit
Key Dates
• PICCI created by PD 520: July 23, 1974
• Board by-law amendments and BSP-Monetary Board resolutions on per diems/RATA: 2000–2010
• Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 12-001-GF-(10&11): February 28, 2012
• COA-CGS Decision No. 2014-01: April 30, 2014
• COA Proper Decision No. 2017-020: February 16, 2017
• COA Proper Resolution denying reconsideration: September 27, 2018
• Supreme Court decision challenged: issued December 14, 2020 (En Banc)
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article IX-B, Sec. 8 (proscription on double or indirect compensation)
• Presidential Decree No. 520 (creation of PICCI, Board composition)
• Corporation Code, Sec. 30 (director compensation limited to reasonable per diems unless otherwise authorized by stockholders)
• BSP Charter (RA 7653) and BSP Monetary Board Resolutions (Nos. 15, 34, 665, 1518, 1901, 1855) authorizing per diems/RATA
• Executive Order No. 24 (per diems cap and approval requirement; effective March 21, 2011)
• Memorandum Order No. 20 (2001 GOCC pay rationalization suspension of increases above NG agency levels)
• Singson v. COA (641 Phil. 154, 2010) (permitting P1,000 per diem and P1,500 RATA for BSP officers in ex-officio PICCI roles)
Antecedents
Under PD 520, BSP organized PICCI to manage the PICC. By-Laws (amended October 31, 2000) authorized Board-fixed per diems and allowances, subject to BSP-MB approval. From 2006 to 2010, BSP-MB resolutions progressively raised per diems to P9,500 and granted P10,000 RATA per meeting. PICCI paid a total of P618,500 to petitioners for board meetings attended during January 2010–February 2011.
Notice of Disallowance
COA Audit Team issued ND No. 12-001-GF-(10&11) disallowing the full P618,500, citing:
- Violation of the Constitution’s double-compensation ban (Art. IX-B, Sec. 8) and Civil Liberties Union v. Exec. Secretary ratio
- Non-compliance with E.O. No. 24’s per diem approval requirement
Directees included petitioners and PICCI staff who processed payments.
Petitioners’ Defense
• Grants were authorized by PICCI By-Laws (Sec. 8, Art. III) and multiple BSP-MB resolutions, and upheld in Singson.
• Civil Liberties Union exception for ex-officio roles did not apply because PICCI duties were not mere adjunct functions.
• E.O. No. 24 and MO No. 20 were inapplicable to benefits granted before their effectivity.
COA-CGS Disposition (April 30, 2014)
• Petition denied: petitioners were ex-officio Board members; By-Laws alone could not authorize additional compensation beyond per diems without law; Civil Liberties Union applied; RATA lacked documentary proof of bona fide expenses; good-faith receipt did not bar recovery.
COA Proper Disposition (Feb. 16, 2017; Sept. 27, 2018)
• Partially granted: lifted disallowance of P1,000 per diem per meeting (P36,000 total) per Singson; affirmed disallowance of the excess per diems (P358,000) and all representation allowances/bonuses (P224,500).
• Denied reconsideration: maintained that By-Laws and Board resolutions did not suffice to authorize RATA or bonuses beyond constitutional limits.
Issues
- Is PICCI a GOCC subject to COA audit?
- Do the challenged benefits constitute unauthorized/double compensation?
- Were increased per diems and RATA validly authorized?
- Does MO No. 20 prohibit these benefits?
- Does E.O. No. 24 apply?
- Are post-decision documents (SEC certification, updated Board resolutions) admissible?
- Are petitioners solidarily liable for return?
Supreme Court Ruling
- PICCI qualifies as a GOCC subsidiary of BSP under the 1987 Constitution (Article IX-B) and Corporation Code; COA audit jurisdiction properly asserted.
- Singson controls: per diems up to P1,000 and RATA of P1,500 per meeting do not violate the double-compensation ban when granted to BSP officers in ex-officio PICCI roles.
- BSP-MB resolutions (Nos. 15, 34, 665, 1518, 1901, 1855) validly authorized the per di
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 244806)
Facts of the Case
- Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 520 (July 23, 1974), the Philippine International Convention Center, Inc. (PICCI) was organized to manage and operate the PICC, with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) as its sole stockholder.
- PICCI’s Board of Directors was composed of the BSP Governor (Chairman), the Senior Deputy Governor (Vice Chairman), and five other members designated by the BSP Monetary Board.
- Petitioners Amando M. Tetangco, Jr. (BSP Governor), Armando L. Suratos (Senior Deputy Governor), and Juan D. De Zuniga, Jr. (Deputy Governor and General Counsel) served as ex-officio members of the PICCI Board from January 2010 until February 2011 (Suratos until December 2010).
- Between December 2006 and December 2010, BSP Monetary Board Resolutions approved successive increases in per diem rates (from ₱6,000 to ₱9,500 for regular and executive meetings) and authorized a ₱10,000 monthly representation and transportation allowance (RATA).
- In accordance with these resolutions, PICCI disbursed a total of ₱618,500 in per diems, RATA, and bonuses to the three petitioners.
Antecedent Jurisprudence
- In Singson et al. v. Commission on Audit (641 Phil. 154, 2010), the Supreme Court upheld the grant of ₱1,000 per diem and ₱1,500 RATA to BSP officers serving ex-officio on PICCI’s Board, holding no double compensation violation under Section 8, Article IX-B of the Constitution.
- Singson clarified that RATA is distinct from salary, intended only to defray unavoidable representation and transportation expenses, and permissible so long as not collected from more than one national agency budget.
Notice of Disallowance
- On post-audit, COA Audit Team Leader Lolita Valenzuela and Supervising Auditor Ma. Teresa Gojunco issued Notice of Disallowance No. 12-001-GF-(10&11) (February 28, 2012), disallowing ₱618,500 granted to petitioners:
• Tetangco: ₱239,000
• Suratos: ₱324,112.90
• De Zuniga: ₱55,387.10 - Grounded on alleged violation of the constitutional proscription against double compensation and Executive Order No. 24 (2011), the ND directed return of benefits by petitioners and three approving officers of PICCI.
Petitioners’ Defense Before COA-CGS
- Argued that the questioned benefits were validly authorized by BSP Monetary Board Resolutions (Nos. 34-1994; 665-1996; 1919-2000) and PICCI By-Laws (Section 8, Article III) under PD 520 and Section 30 of the Corporation Code.
- Relied on Singson to demonstrate that per diems and RATA granted to BSP officers in their ex-officio capacity did not amount to double compensation.
- Contended that Civil Liberties Union v. Exec. Sec. was misapplied, since PICCI Board duties were not mere adjuncts to their BSP functions and merited separate allowance.