Bustamante v COA 216 SCRA 134

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/nov1992/gr_103309_1992.html

FACTS: Petitioner is the Regional Legal Counsel of National Power Corporation (NPC). As such
he was issued a government vehicle with plate number SCC 387. Pursuant to NPC policy as
reflected in the Board Resolution No. 81-95 authorizing the monthly disbursement of
transportation allowance, the petitioner, in addition to the use of government vehicle, claimed
his transportation allowance for the month of January 1989. On May 31, 1990, the petitioner
received an Auditor's Notice to Person Liable dated April 17, 1990 from respondent Regional
Auditor Martha Roxana Caburian disallowing P1,250.00 representing aforesaid transportation
allowance. The petitioner moved for reconsideration of the disallowance of the claim for
transportation allowance which was denied. Petitioner appealed this denial to the Commission
on Audit which denied do due course. Hence this petition. The petitioner takes exception from
the coverage of said circular contending that such circular did not mention the NPC as one of
the corporations/offices covered by it ( COA Circular No. 75-6)

ISSUE: Whether such denial to give due course to the appeal of herein petitioner constitutes
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction? Whether NPC takes an exception
from such coverage of the said circular contending that such circular did not mention NPC as
one of the corporations/offices covered by it.

HELD: NO. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. NO. It is very patent that the circular is
addressed, among others, to managing heads of Government-owned or Controlled
Corporations, the NPC being held under such category of corporations. We likewise cannot
sustain petitioner's contention that the Commission, in the exercise of its power granted by the
Constitution, usurped the statutory functions of the NPC Board of Directors for its leads to the
absurd conclusion that a mere Board of Directors of a government-owned and controlled
corporation, by issuing a resolution, can put to naught a constitutional provision which has been
ratified by the majority of the Filipino people. If We will not sustain the Commission's power and
duty to examine, audit and settle accounts pertaining to this particular expenditures or use of
funds and property, owned or held in trust by this government-owned and controlled
corporation, the NPC, We will be rendering inutile this Constitutional Body which has been
tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and
ultimately, the people's property.
Saligumba v COA 117 SCRA 669

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/oct1982/gr_l_61676_1982.html

FACTS: On the basis of the sworn complaint of Editha Saligumba, the COA instituted the
administrative case against Leonardo Estella, Auditing Examiner III, in the Auditor's Office of
Misamis Occidental. The charge was that the respondent raped Editha Saligumba on several
occasions. For insufficiency of evidence, the charge was dropped by COA. Saligumba now
wants the Supreme Court of review the COA decision. She insists that the decision of the COA
is contrary to the evidence and the same time raises factual issues.

ISSUE: Whether the action will prosper?

HELD: The petition has to be dismissed for the following reasons: 1. Our power to review COA
decisions refers to money matters and not to administrative cases involving the discipline of its
personnel. 2. Even assuming that We have jurisdiction to review decisions on administrative
matters as mentioned above, We cannot do so on factual issues; Our power to review is limited
to legal issues.
Rebecca Barbo v Commission on Audit (October 10, 2008)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/may2005/gr_127515_2005.html

FACTS: Petitioners are officials of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and
designated members of the Interim Board of Directors of the San Fernando Water District
(SFWD). On December 4, 1995 and February 12 1996, the LWUA Board of Trustees issued
Board Resolution No. 313, Series of 1995 and Board Resolution No. 39, Series of 1996
respectively. These Board Resolutions authorized the Board of Directors of SFWD to receive
reimbursable allowances in the form of Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA),
Travel Allowance, and Extraordinary & Miscellaneous Expense (EME); Christmas Bonus;
Uniform Allowance; Rice Allowance; Medical and Dental Benefits; and Productivity Incentive
Bonus. Pursuant to the said Board Resolutions, petitioners received EME, Rice Allowance,
Christmas Bonus, and Productivity Bonus from SFWD during the calendar years starting 1994
until 1996. On June 30, 1997, a Special Audit Team of COA Regional Office No. III at San
Fernando, Pampanga audited the financial accounts of SFWD for the period covering January
1, 1994 to July 15, 1996. The COA Special Audit Team disallowed the payment of the above-
mentioned benefits and allowances received by petitioners after the same were found to be
excessive and contrary to Sections 228, 162 and 163 of the Government Accounting and
Auditing Manual (GAAM) and to Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 954073 in
relation to Section 13 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 198 (Provincial Water Utilities Act of
1973) as amended. Petitioners were directed to refund the benefits and allowances subject to
the disallowance. Petitioners contend that the COA lacks jurisdiction to declare whether or not
LWUA Board Resolution Nos. 313 and 39 are consistent with Section 13 of PD No. 198, as
amended, on matters pertaining to the compensation and "other benefits" of the Directors of the
LWD. This is allegedly the function of the courts. The Regional Director affirmed the
disallowance. Petitioners elevated the matter to COA. COA declared that the subject bonuses
and allowances received by petitioners constituted additional compensation or remuneration.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence this instant petition.

ISSUE: 1.Whether respondent has the jurisdiction to motu proprio declare LWUA Board
Resolution No. 313, S. 1995, as amended by Resolution No. 39, S. 1996, to be totally in conflict
with Sec. 13 of PD No. 198 as amended. 2. Whether Sec 13, PD 198, as amended, prohibiting
petitioners' entitlement to RATA, EME, Bonuses and Other Benefits and Allowances.

HELD: The Court has already settled this issue in a myriad of cases. Particularly, in Rodolfo S.
de Jesus [Catbalogan Water District] v. COA, the Court upheld the authority and jurisdiction of
the COA to rule on the legality of the disbursement of government funds by a water district and
declared that such power does not conflict with the jurisdiction of the courts, the DBM, and the
LWUA. Citing Section 2, Subdivision D, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution the Court declared
that it is the mandate of the COA to audit all government agencies, including government-owned
and controlled corporations with original charters. Indeed, the Constitution specifically vests in
the COA the authority to determine whether government entities comply with laws and
regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of
government funds. This independent constitutional body is tasked to be vigilant and
conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and ultimately the people's,
property. Anent the second issue, a water district is a government-owned and controlled
corporation with a special charter since it is created pursuant to a special law, Presidential
Decree (PD) 198. It is undeniable that PD 198 expressly prohibits the grant of RATA, EME, and
bonuses to members of the board of Water Districts.