Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Espinas V Coa Digest

    Uploaded by

    Dante Valentin Tungol
    This case concerns a petition for certiorari assailing the Commission on Audit's (COA) decision affirming its notice of disallowance regarding petitioners' reimbursement claims for extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses. The petitioners, who are department managers of the Local Water Utilities Administration, sought reimbursement for expenses from January to December 2006. However, the COA disallowed the claims because the petitioners only provided certifications to support the claims, and not actual receipts, in violation of COA rules. The COA and the Court affirmed the disallowance, finding the COA's interpretation of its own rules was reasonable and not a grave abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Espinas V Coa Digest

    Uploaded by

    Dante Valentin Tungol
    52 views3 pages
    This case concerns a petition for certiorari assailing the Commission on Audit's (COA) decision affirming its notice of disallowance regarding petitioners' reimbursement claims for extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses. The petitioners, who are department managers of the Local Water Utilities Administration, sought reimbursement for expenses from January to December 2006. However, the COA disallowed the claims because the petitioners only provided certifications to support the claims, and not actual receipts, in violation of COA rules. The COA and the Court affirmed the disallowance, finding the COA's interpretation of its own rules was reasonable and not a grave abuse of discretion.

    Original Title

    Espinas v Coa Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case concerns a petition for certiorari assailing the Commission on Audit's (COA) decision affirming its notice of disallowance regarding petitioners' reimbursement claims for extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses. The petitioners, who are department managers of the Local Water Utilities Administration, sought reimbursement for expenses from January to December 2006. However, the COA disallowed the claims because the petitioners only provided certifications to support the claims, and not actual receipts, in violation of COA rules. The COA and the Court affirmed the disallowance, finding the COA's interpretation of its own rules was reasonable and not a grave abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views3 pages

    Espinas V Coa Digest

    Uploaded by

    Dante Valentin Tungol
    This case concerns a petition for certiorari assailing the Commission on Audit's (COA) decision affirming its notice of disallowance regarding petitioners' reimbursement claims for extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses. The petitioners, who are department managers of the Local Water Utilities Administration, sought reimbursement for expenses from January to December 2006. However, the COA disallowed the claims because the petitioners only provided certifications to support the claims, and not actual receipts, in violation of COA rules. The COA and the Court affirmed the disallowance, finding the COA's interpretation of its own rules was reasonable and not a grave abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Espinas v COA GR no.

    198271

    PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

    Assailed in this petition for certiorari[1] is respondent Commission on Audit's (CoA) Decision No. 2011-
    039[2] dated August 8, 2011 which affirmed Notice of Disallowance No. 09-001-GF(06)[3] dated July 21,
    2009 covering petitioners' reimbursement claims for extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses for the
    period January to December 2006.

    The Facts

    The Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) is a government-owned and controlled corporation
    (GOCC) created[4] pursuant to Presidential Decree No. (PD) 198,[5] as amended, otherwise known as
    the "Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973."

    Petitioners are department managers of the LWUA who, together with 28 other LWUA officials, sought
    reimbursement of their extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (EME) for the period January to
    December 2006. According to petitioners, the reimbursement claims were within the ceiling provided
    under the LWUA Calendar Year 2006 Corporate Operating Budget approved by the LWUA Board of
    Trustees and the Department of Budget and Management.[6]

    On April 16, 2007, the Office of the CoA Auditor, through Priscilla DG. Cruz, the Supervising Auditor
    assigned to the LWUA (SA Cruz), issued Audit Observation ,reimbursed only through an attached
    certification attesting to their claimed incurrence this violated CoA Circular which pertinently states that
    the "claim for reimbursement of such expenses shall be supported by receipts and/or other documents
    evidencing disbursements."[11]

    During the CoA Exit Conference held, LWUA management officials, including herein petitioners,
    manifested that they were unaware of the existence of CoA Circular No. 2006-01, particularly during the
    period January to December 2006

    Pursuant to the CoA's 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure, petitioners appealed the notice of disallowance
    to the CoA Cluster Director contending that the "certification" they attached in support of their EME
    reimbursement claims was originally allowed
    Further, petitioners alleged that CoA Circular is violative of the equal protection clause since officials of
    GOCCs, such as the LWUA officials, are, among others, prohibited by virtue of the same issuance from
    supporting their reimbursement claims with "certifications," unlike officials of the national government
    agencies (NGAs) who have been so permitted

    Finally, petitioners submitted that CoA Circular was not duly published in the Official Gazette, or in a
    newspaper of general circulation and thus, unenforceable

    Petitioners' appeal was denied by CoA Cluster Director IV Divinia M. Alagon, thereby affirming Notice of
    Disallowance

    Applying the statutory construction principle of ejusdem generis,[23] CoA Cluster Director Alagon held
    that a certification executed by the official concerned for the purpose of claiming EME cannot be
    construed to fall under the phrase "other documents evidencing disbursements She explained that a
    certification is not of the same class as a receipt because the latter is issued by a third person

    Finally, CoA Cluster Director Alagon stated that CoA Circular was published in the Manila Standard Today
    in its February 24, 2006

    The Issue Before the Court

    The primordial issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not grave abuse of discretion attended the
    CoA's ruling in this case.

    The Court's Ruling

    The petition lacks merit.

    (2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the
    scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and
    promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and
    disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses
    of government funds and properties.
    As an independent constitutional body conferred with such power, it reasonably follows that the CoA's
    interpretation of its own auditing rules and regulations, as enunciated in its decisions, should be
    accorded great weight and respect

    Viewed in the foregoing light, the Court finds that the CoA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion
    as its affirmance of Notice of Disallowance) is based on cogent legal grounds.

    First off, the Court concurs with the CoA's conclusion that the "certification" submitted by petitioners
    cannot be properly considered as a supporting document within the purview of Item III(3) of CoA
    Circular No. 2006-01 which pertinently states that a "claim for reimbursement of [EME] expenses shall
    be supported by receipts and/or other documents evidencing disbursements." Similar to the word
    "receipts," the "other documents" pertained to under the above-stated provision is qualified by the
    phrase "evidencing disbursements." Citing its lexicographic definition, the CoA stated that the term
    "disbursement" means "to pay out commonly from a fund" or "to make payment in settlement of debt
    or account payable."[47] That said, it then logically follows that petitioners' "certification," so as to fall
    under the phrase "other documents" under Item III(3) of CoA Circular No. 2006-01, must substantiate
    the "paying out of an account payable," or, in simple term, a disbursement.[48] However, an
    examination of the sample "certification"[49] attached to the petition does not, by any means, fit this
    description. The signatory therein merely certifies that he/she has spent, within a particular month, a
    certain amount for meetings, seminars, conferences, official entertainment, public relations, and the
    like, and that the certified amount is within the ceiling authorized under the LWUA corporate budget.
    Accordingly, since petitioners' reimbursement claims were solely supported by this "certification," the
    CoA properly disallowed said claims for failure to comply with CoA Circular

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance No. 09-001-GF(06) dated
    July 21, 2009 is hereby AFFIRMED.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy