Title
Wycoco vs. Aquino
Case
G.R. No. 237874
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2021
NFA employees challenged COA's disallowance of Food and Grocery Incentive; SC upheld COA, citing legal violations, but deferred civil liability rulings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 219157)

Background and Anatomization of Events

In December 1998, NFA Administrator Eduardo Nonato Joson sought presidential approval from then-President Joseph Estrada for a food assistance allowance, which was granted for a single Christmas season. In subsequent years, under President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, modifications were made regarding employee bonuses, culminating in the NFA Council’s approval, on May 18, 2005, to grant an annual FGI incentive to NFA employees. However, following multiple audits by the COA, several notices of disallowance were issued against these payments. The specific notices in question included ND No. 11-003-GOF(10) for the year 2010 and ND No. 2014-01(12) for 2012.

Legal Basis for Disallowance

Both notices cited violations of applicable laws, including the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), the General Appropriations Act of 2010, and various Department of Budget and Management Circulars, which delineate the conditions under which incentives may be legally granted. The COA ruled that the FGI did not have legal authorization from the president, which was a prerequisite for its continuation.

Rulings of the COA

The COA upheld the disallowance on the grounds that the benefits were unauthorized and that the evidence presented by the petitioners indicating good faith was insufficient. Notably, the COA pointed out that the historical context of the FGI payments failed to demonstrate compliance with legislative requirements, thus asserting that previous presidential approvals were specific to individual instances and not indicative of ongoing authority.

Issues Presented by the Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the FGI had been traditionally awarded and was sanctioned by the “presidential imprimatur.” This claim also invoked equity principles. Ultimately, they contested the COA’s authority to disallow the payments based on their historical context and alleged good faith in administering the incentives.

Court's Analysis of COA's Rulings

The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion by COA in its rulings. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof of grave abuse lies with the petitioners, and their failure to show such abuse affirmed the COA's decisions. The Court also reiterated the principle of res judicata, having been previously established in Escarez v. Commission on Audit, which ruled that similar disallowances were upheld on the same grounds in earlier cases.

Finding on Presidential Authority and FGI Legality

The Supreme Court underscored that the previous presidential approval related specifically to the food assistance allocated for the 1998 Christmas season and did not extend to sustained annual incentives. Furthermore, the Court maintained that any understanding of authority based on historical practice did not withstand legal scrutiny under Republic Act No. 6758.

Liability for Return of Disallowed Funds

Concerning the civil liability of both approving officers and reci

...continue reading

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