Case Digests 18

8/13/2019 Case Digests 18

1/32

NAME: JABE TECSON GICA [ CHAPTER 13,14,15: Case Digest 9

!ROM THE CO"RSE O"T#INE$ %

TIT#E: LUEGOVS.CSC

CITATION: 143 SCRA 3&' G(R( NO( #)*913'

DATE: A"G"ST 5, 19+*

!ACTS:

The petitioner was appointed Administrative Officer 11, Office of the City

Mayor, Cebu City, by Mayor Forentino Soon on February 1!, 1"!#. The

appointment was described as permanent$ but the Civi Service Commission

approved it as $temporary,$ sub%ect to the fina action ta&en in the protest

fied by the private respondent and another empoyee, and provided $there

'was( no pendin) administrative case a)ainst the appointee, no pendin)

protest a)ainst the appointment nor any decision by competent authority

that wi adversey affect the approva of the appointment.$

On March **, 1"!+, after protracted hearin)s the e)aity of which does not

have to be decided here, the Civi Service Commission found the private

respondent better uaified than the petitioner for the contested position

and, accordin)y, directed $that Feicua Tuo-o be appointed to the position

of Administrative Officer 11 in the Administrative ivision, Cebu City, in pace

of Feimon /ue)o whose appointment as Administrative Officer 00 is hereby

revo&ed.$

The private respondent was so appointed on une *!, 1"!+, by the new

mayor, Mayor 2onad uterte.

ISS"E:

3hether or not the CSC is authori-ed to disapprove a permanent

appointment on the )round that another person is better uaified than

the appointee and, on the basis of this findin), order his repacement4

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:


2/32

5o. The appointment of the petitioner was not temporary but permanent and

was therefore protected by Constitution. The appointin) authority indicated

that it was permanent, as he had the ri)ht to do so, and it was not for the

respondent CSC to reverse him and ca it temporary.

Section "'h(, Art V of the Civi Service ecree provides that the Commission

sha have inter aia the power to 67approve a appointments, whether

ori)ina or promotiona, to positions in the civi service7 and disapprove

those where the appointees do not possess appropriate ei)ibiity or reuired

uaifications.8

The CSC is not empowered to determine the &ind or nature of the

appointment e9tended by the appointin) officer, its authority bein) imited

to approvin) or reviewin) the appointment in the i)ht of the reuirements of

the CSC /aw. 3hen the appointee is uaified and a the other e)a

reuirements are satisfied, the Commission has no choice but to attest to the

appointment in accordance with the CSC /aws.

CSC is without authority to revo&e an appointment because of its beief that

another person was better uaified, which is an encroachment on the

discretion vested soey in the city mayor.


3/32

TIT#E: LEYSONVS.OMBUDSMAN

CITATION: GR NO( 13499-

DATE: APRI# &', &---

!ACTS:

0n 1"": 0nternationa Towa)e and Transport Corp. '0TTC(, a domestic

corporation en)a)ed in shippin) business, entered into a 1 yr. contract with

/e)aspi Oi Company, 0nc. '/;


4/32


5/32

nature. The C00F companies are private corporations and not within the scope

of the %urisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.

TIT#E: BALUYOTVS( HOLGANZA

CITATION: GR NO( 13*3'4

DATE: !EBR"AR. 9, &---

!ACTS:

urin) a spot audit in 1"EE, the auditors from the =hiippine 5ationa 2ed

Cross '=52C( headuarters discovered a case shorta)e in the funds of its

@oho chapter. The chapter administrator, petitioner @auyot, was hed

accountabe and thereafter, respondent o)an-a as member of the board

@oho chapter, fied a compaint with the Ofc. of the Ombudsman for

maversation.

?pon recommendation of respondent Miitante, an administratiave doc&et of

dishonesty was aso opened a)ainst @auyot. @auyot raised the defense that

the Ombudsman had no %urisdiction as he had authority ony over

)overnment owned or controed corporations which the =52C was not. She

)ives as evidence of its private character 1( it does not receive bud)etary

support from the )overnment and a money )iven to it by the atter and its

instrumentaities become private funds of the or)ani-ation. *( funds for the

payment of personneHs saaries and other emouments come from yeary

fund campai)ns, private contributions and rentas from its properties. #( it is


6/32

not audited by COA. =52C, petitioner caims fas under the 0nternationa

Federation of 2ed Cross, SwissBbased or)ani-ation.

ISS"E:

3hether or not the =hiippine 5ationa 2ed Cross is a


7/32

corporations, and enforce their administrative, civi and crimina iabiity in

ever case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service

by the


8/32

contends on one hand that the petitioners are covered by the Civi Service

aws, rues and re)uation thus have no ri)ht to stri&e. They are not covered

by the 5/2C or O/; therefore the court may en%oin the petitioners from

stri&in).

ISS"E:

3hether or not


9/32

%urisdiction thus the resort of SSS before the )enera court for the issuance of

a writ of in%unction to en%oin the stri&e is appropriate.

TIT#E: BITONIO JR.VS.COA

CITATION: GR NO( 14'39&

DATE: MARCH 1&, &--4

!ACTS:

0n 1""+, petitioner @enedicto ;rnesto 2. @itonio, r. was appointed irector 0V

of the @ureau of /abor 2eations in the epartment of /abor and

;mpoyment. As representative of the Secretary of /abor to the =;KA @oard,


10/32

he was receivin) a per diem for every board meetin) he attended durin) the

years 1"" to 1""E.

After a post audit of the =;KAHs disbursement transactions, the COA

disaowed the payment of per diems to Mr. @itonio pursuant to the Supreme

Court ruin) decarin) unconstitutiona the hodin) of other offices by the

cabinet members, their deputies and assistants in addition to their primary

office and the receipt of compensation therefore, and, to COA Memorandum

5o. "EBD#! dated September 1", 1""E, impementin) Senate Committee

2eports 5o. D".

0n his motion for reconsideration to the COA, he contended that the Supreme

Court modified its earier ruin) in the Civi /iberties ?nion case which imits

the prohibition to Cabinet Secretaries, ?ndersecretaries and their Assistants.

Officias )iven the ran& euivaent to a Secretary, ?ndersecretary or

Assistant Secretary and other appointive officias beow the ran& of Assistant

Secretary are not covered by the prohibition.

e further stated that the =;KA Charter '2A E"1:(, enacted four years after

the Civi /iberties ?nion case became fina, authori-ed the payment of per

diemsL in e9pressy authori-in) per diems, Con)ress shoud be concusivey

presumed to have been aware of the parameters of the constitutiona

prohibition as interpreted in the Civi /iberties ?nion case.

COA rendered the assaied decision denyin) petitionerHs motion for

reconsideration.

ISS"E:

3hether or not COA correcty disaowed the per diems received by the

petitioner for his attendance in the =;KA @oard of irectorsH meetin)s

as representative of the Secretary of /abor4

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:


11/32

The assaied decision of the COA is affirmed.

The petitioner is, indeed, not entited to receive per diem for hisboard

meetin)s sittin) as representative of the Secretary of /abor in the @oard of

irectors of the =;KA.

The petitionerHs presence in the =;KA @oard meetin)s is soey by virtue of

his capacity as representative of the Secretary of /abor. Since the Secretary

of /abor is prohibited from receivin) compensation for his additiona office or

empoyment, such prohibition i&ewise appies to the petitioner who sat in

the @oard ony in behaf of the Secretary of /abor. The Supreme Court cannot

aow the petitioner who sat as representative of the Secretary of /abor in

the =;KA @oard to have a better ri)ht than his principa.

Moreover, it is a basic tenet that any e)isative enactment must not be

repu)nant to the Constitution. 5o aw can render it nu)atory because the

Constitution is more superior to a statute. The framers of 2.A. 5o. E"1: must

have reai-ed the faw in the aw which is the reason why the aw was ater

amended by 2.A. 5o. !E+! to cure such defect. The option of desi)natin)

representative to the @oard by the different Cabinet Secretaries was deeted.

/i&ewise, the para)raph as to payment of per diems to the members of the

@oard of irectors was aso deeted, considerin) that such stipuation was

ceary in confict with the proscription set by the Constitution.


12/32

TIT#E: CAYETANOVS.MONSOD

CITATION: &-1 SCRA &1- G(R( NO( 1--113

DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1991

!ACTS:

2espondent Christian Monsod was nominated by =resident Cora-on C.

Auino to the position of Chairman of the COM;/;C in a etter received by

the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on Apri *, 1""1.

=etitioner opposed the nomination because ae)edy Monsod does not

possess the reuired uaification of havin) been en)a)ed in the practice of

aw for at east ten years.

On une , 1""1, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination

of Monsod as Chairman of the COM;/;C. On une 1!, 1""1, he too& his oath

of office. On the same day, he assumed office as Chairman of the COM;/;C.

Chaen)in) the vaidity of the confirmation by the Commission on

Appointments of Monsods nomination, petitioner as a citi-en and ta9payer,

fied the instant petition for certiorari and =rohibition prayin) that said

confirmation and the conseuent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the

Commission on ;ections be decared nu and void.

ISS"E:

3hether or not the appointment of Chairman Monsod of Comeec

vioates Section 1 '1(, Artice 0>BC of the 1"!E Constitution4

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:

5o. The practice of aw is not imited to the conduct of cases in court. A

person is aso considered to be in the practice of aw when heJ 6. . . for

vauabe consideration en)a)es in the business of advisin) person, firms,

associations or corporations as to their ri)hts under the aw, or appears in a

representative capacity as an advocate in proceedin)s pendin) or

prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body,

committee, or commission constituted by aw or authori-ed to sette

controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity,

en)a)es in the business of advisin) cients as to their ri)hts under the aw,

or whie so en)a)ed performs any act or acts either in court or outside of

court for that purpose, is en)a)ed in the practice of aw.8


13/32

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the =hiippine @ar, havin) passed thebar e9aminations of 1":D with a )rade of !:.G. e has been a dues

payin) member of the 0nte)rated @ar of the =hiippines since its inception in

1"E*BE#. e has aso been payin) his professiona icense fees as awyer for

more than ten years. Atty. MonsodHs past wor& e9periences as a awyerB

economist, a awyerBmana)er, a awyerBentrepreneur of industry, a awyerB

ne)otiator of contracts, and a awyerBe)isator of both the rich and the poor

N veriy more than satisfy the constitutiona reuirement N that he has been

en)a)ed in the practice of aw for at east ten years.


14/32

TIT#E: JAVIERVS( COMELEC

CITATION: 144 SCRA 194 G(R( NOS( #)*+3'9)+1

DATE: SEPTEMBER &&, 19+*

!ACTS:

avier and =acificador, a member of the @/ under Marcos, were rivas to be

members of the @atasan in May 1"!+ in Antiue. urin) eection, avier

compained of 8massive terrorism, intimidation, duress, voteBbuyin), fraud,

tamperin) and fasification of eection returns under duress, threat and

intimidation, snatchin) of baot bo9es perpetrated by the armed men of

=acificador.8 COM;/;C %ust referred the compaints to the AF=. On the same

compaint, the *nd ivision of the Commission on ;ections directed the

provincia board of canvassers of Antiue to proceed with the canvass but to

suspend the procamation of the winnin) candidate unti further orders.

On une E, 1"!+, the same *nd ivision ordered the board to immediatey

convene and to procaim the winner without pre%udice to the outcome of thecase before the Commission. On certiorari before the SC, the procamation

made by the board of canvassers was set aside as premature, havin) been

made before the apse of the Bday period of appea, which the avier had

seasonaby made. avier pointed out that the irre)uarities of the eection

must first be resoved before procaimin) a winner. Further, Opinion, one of

the Commissioners shoud inhibit himsef as he was a former aw partner of

=acificador. Aso, the procamation was made by ony the *nd ivision but

the Constitute reuires that it be procaimed by the COM;/;C en banc. 0n

Feb 1"!:, durin) pendency, avier was )unned down. The Soicitor


15/32

The SC rued in favor of avier and has overrued the SoB


16/32

TIT#E: CANISOCA VS.COMELEC

CITATION: 144 SCRA 194 DATE:

DECEMBER 5, 199'

!ACTS:

2icardo 6@oy8 Canicosa and Severino /a%ara were candidates for Mayor in

Caamba, /a)una durin) the ! May 1"" eections. /a%ara was procaimed

winner by the Municipa @oard of Canvassers.

On 1 May Canicosa fied with the COM;/;C a =etition to ecare Faiure of

;ection and to ecare 5u and Void the Canvass and =rocamation because

of ae)ed widespread frauds and anomaies. owever, the COM;/;C en

banc dismissed the petition on the )round that the ae)ations therein did

not %ustify a decaration of faiure of eection.

ISS"E:

3hether or not the Comeec division shoud have heard it first before

decidin) on it en banc4

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:

5o. Section #, Artice 0>BC appies ony when the COM;/;C acts in the

e9ercise of its ad%udicatory or uasiB %udicia functions and not when it merey

e9ercises purey administrative functions. Moreover, it is e9pressy provided

in 2ue *E,Section E of the COM;/;C 2ues of =rocedure that any party

dissatisfied with the ruin) of the board of canvassers sha have a ri)ht to

appea to the COM;/;C en banc.


17/32

Puestions as to whether eections have been hed or whether certain returns

were fasified or manufactured and therefore shoud be e9cuded from the

canvass do not invove the ri)ht to vote. Such uestions are propery within

the administrative %urisdiction of COM;/;C, hence, may be acted upon

directy by the COM;/;C en banc without havin) to pass throu)h any of its

divisions.

The COM;/;C e9ercises direct and immediate supervision and contro over

nationa and oca officias or empoyees, incudin) members of any nationa

or oca aw enforcement a)ency and instrumentaity of the )overnment

reuired by aw to perform duties reative to the conduct of eections. 0ts

power of direct supervision and contro incudes the power to review, modify

or set aside any act of such nationa and oca officias. 0t e9ercises

immediate supervision and contro over the members of the boards of

eection inspectors and canvassers.

0ts statutory power of supervision and contro incudes the power to revise,

reverse or set aside the action of the boards, as we as to do what the

boards shoud have done, even if uestions reative thereto have not been

eevated to it by an a))rieved party, for such power incudes the authority to

initiate motu proprio or by itsef such steps or actions as may be reuired

pursuant to aw.


18/32

TIT#E: ARUELO, JRVS.CA

CITATION: &&' SCRA 311 G(R( NO( 1-'+5&

DATE: OCTOBER &-, 1993

!ACTS:


19/32

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:

On the first issue, the Court hed that Arueo fied with the COM;/;C preB

procamation case a)ainst


20/32

Constitutionay spea&in), the COM;/;C can not adopt a rue prohibitin) the

fiin) of certain peadin)s in the re)uar courts. The power to promu)ate

rues concernin) peadin)s, practice and procedure in a courts is vested on

the Supreme Court 'Constitution, Art V000, Sec. QR(.

=rivate respondent received a copy of the order of the 2e)iona Tria Court

denyin) his motion for a bi of particuars on Au)ust :, 1""*. ?nder Section

1 'b(, 2ue 1* of the 2evised 2ues of Court, a party has at east five days to

fie his answer after receipt of the order denyin) his motion for a bi of

particuars. =rivate respondent, therefore, had unti Au)ust 11, 1""* within

which to fie his answer. The Answer with CounterB=rotest and Countercaim

fied by him on Au)ust 11, 1""* was fied timey.

TIT#E: NPC VS.COMELEC

CITATION: 144 SCRA 194

DATE: MARCH 5, 199&

!ACTS:

=etitioners in these cases consist of representatives of the mass media which

are prevented from sein) or donatin) space and time for poitica

advertisementsL two '*( individuas who are candidates for office 'one for

nationa and the other for provincia office( in the comin) May 1""*

eectionsL and ta9payers and voters who caim that their ri)ht to be informed

of eection 0ssue and of credentias of the candidates is bein) curtaied. 0t is

principay ar)ued by petitioners that Section 11 'b( of 2epubic Act 5o.

::+:1 invades and vioates the constitutiona )uarantees comprisin)

freedom of e9pression. =etitioners maintain that the prohibition imposed by

Section 11 'b( amounts to censorship, because it seects and sin)es out for


21/32

suppression and repression with crimina sanctions, ony pubications of a

particuar content, namey, mediaBbased eection or poitica propa)anda

durin) the eection period of 1""*. 0t is asserted that the prohibition is in

dero)ation of medias roe, function and duty to provide adeuate channes

of pubic information and pubic opinion reevant to eection 0ssue.

Further, petitioners contend that Section 11 'b( abrid)es the freedom of

speech of candidates, and that the suppression of mediaBbased campai)n or

poitica propa)anda e9cept those appearin) in the Comeec space of the

newspapers and on Comeec time of radio and teevision broadcasts, woud

brin) about a substantia reduction in the uantity or voume of information

concernin) candidates and 0ssue in the eection thereby curtaiin) andimitin) the ri)ht of voters to information and opinion.

ISS"E:

3hether or 5ot Section 11 'b( of 2epubic Act 5o. ::+: constitutiona4

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:

Ies. 0t seems a modest proposition that the provision of the @i of 2i)hts

which enshrines freedom of speech, freedom of e9pression and freedom of

the press has to be ta&en in con%unction with Artice 0> 'C( '+( which may be

seen to be a specia provision appicabe durin) a specific imited period N

i.e., $durin) the eection period.$ 0n our own society, euaity of opportunity

to proffer onesef for pubic office,

without re)ard to the eve of financia resources that one may have at ones

disposa, is ceary an important vaue. One of the basic state poicies )iven

constitutiona ran& by Artice 00, Section *: of the Constitution is the

e)aitarian demand that $the State sha )uarantee eua access to

opportunities for pubic service and prohibit poitica dynasties as may be

defined by aw.$ The essentia uestion is whether or not the assaied

e)isative or administrative provisions constitute a permissibe e9ercise of

the power of supervision or re)uation of the operations of communication

and information enterprises durin) an eection period, or whether such act


22/32

has )one beyond permissibe supervision or re)uation of media operations

so as to constitute unconstitutiona repression of freedom of speech and

freedom of the press. The Court considers that Section 11 'b( has not )one

outside the permissibe bounds of supervision or re)uation of media

operations durin) eection periods.

Section 11 'b( is imited in the duration of its appicabiity and enforceabiity.

@y virtue of the operation of Artice 0> 'C( '+( of the Constitution, Section 11

'b( is imited in its appicabiity in time to eection periods. Section 11 'b(

does not purport in any way to restrict the reportin) by newspapers or radio

or teevision stations of news or newsBworthy events reatin) to candidates,

their uaifications, poitica parties and pro)rams of )overnment. Moreover,Section 11 'b( does not reach commentaries and e9pressions of beief or

opinion by reporters or broadcasters or editors or commentators or

coumnists in respect of candidates, their uaifications, and pro)rams and

so forth, so on) at east as such comments, opinions and beiefs are not in

fact advertisements for particuar candidates coverty paid for. 0n sum,

Section 11 'b( is not to be read as reachin) any report or commentary other

covera)e that, in responsibe media, is not paid for by candidates for poitica

office. Section 11 'b( as desi)ned to cover ony paid poitica advertisements

of particuar candidates.

The imitin) impact of Section 11 'b( upon the ri)ht to free speech of the

candidates themseves is not unduy repressive or unreasonabe.

TIT#E: FLORESVS.COMELEC

CITATION: 1+4 SCRA 99 G(R( NO( +9*-4

DATE: APRI# &-, 199-

!ACTS:


23/32

=etitioner 2oue Fores was decared by the board of canvassers as havin)

the hi)hest number of votes for &a)awad on the March 1"!" eections, in

@aran)ay =obacion, Tayum, Abra, and thus procaimed punon) baran)ay in

accordance with Section of 2.A. ::E". owever, his eection was protested

by private respondent 2apisora, who paced second in the eection with one

vote ess than the petitioner. The Municipa Circuit Tria Court of Tayum

sustained 2apisora and instaed him as punon) baran)ay in pace of the

petitioner after deductin) two votes as stray from the atterHs tota. Fores

appeaed to the 2TC, which affirmed the chaen)ed decision in toto. The

%ud)e a)reed that the four votes cast for 6Fores8 ony, without any

distin)uishin) first name or initia, shoud a have been considered invaid

instead of bein) divided euay between the petitioner and Anastacio Fores,

another candidate for &a)awad. The tota credited to the petitioner was

correcty reduced by *, demotin) him to second pace.

The petitioner went to the COM;/;C, which dismissed his appea on the

)round that it had no power to review the decision of the 2TC, based on

Section " of 2.A. ::E", that decisions of the 2TC in a protest appeaed to it

from the municipa tria court in baran)ay eections 6on uestions of fact

sha be fina and nonBappeaabe8. 0n his petition for certiorari, the COM;/;C

is fauted for not ta&in) co)ni-ance of the petitioners appea.

ISS"E:

3hether or not the decisions of Municipa or Metropoitan Courts in

baran)ay eection contests are sub%ect to the e9cusive appeate

%urisdiction of the COM;/;C considerin) Section " of 2.A. 5o. ::E"4

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:

The dismissa of the appea is %ustified, but on an entirey different and more

si)nificant )round, to wit, Artice 0>BC, Section *'*( of the Constitution,

providin) that the COM;/;C sha 6;9ercise e9cusive ori)ina %urisdiction

over a contests reatin) to the eections, returns and uaifications of a

eective re)iona, provincia, and city officias, and appeate %urisdiction over

a contests invovin) eective municipa officias decided by tria courts of

)enera %urisdiction, or invovin) eective baran)ay officias decided by tria

courts of imited %urisdiction8.


24/32

Municipa or Metropoitan Courts bein) courts of imited %urisdiction, their

decisions in baran)ay eection contests are sub%ect to the e9cusive appeate

%urisdiction of the COM;/;C under the aforeBuoted section. ence, the

decision rendered by the Municipa Circuit Tria Court, shoud have been

appeaed directy to the COM;/;C and not to the 2TC. Accordin)y, Section "

of 2ep. Act 5o. ::E", insofar as it provides that the decision of the municipa

or metropoitan court in a baran)ay eection case shoud be appeaed to the

2TC, must be decared unconstitutiona.


25/32

TIT#E: GARCES VS.CA

CITATION: &59 SCRA 99 G(R( NO( 114'95

DATE: J"#. 1', 199*

!ACTS:

/ucita BA. 2TC dismissed the petition for mandamus on

two )rounds, vi-., '1( that uo warranto is the proper remedy, and '*( that


26/32

the 6cases8 or 6matters8 referred under the constitution pertain ony to

those invovin) the conduct of eections.

CA affirmed the 2TCHs dismissa of the case.

ISS"E:

3hether or not the case is co)ni-abe by the Supreme Court4

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:

5o. The case is co)ni-abe in the 2TC.

Sec. E, Art. 0>BA of the Constitution providesJ

6;ach commission sha decide by a ma%ority vote of a its members any

case or matter brou)ht before it within si9ty days from the date of its

submission for decision or resoution. A case or matter is deemed submitted

for decision or resoution upon the fiin) of the ast peadin), brief, or

memorandum reuired by the rues of the commission or by the commission

itsef. ?ness otherwise provided by this constitution or by aw, any decision,

order, or ruin) of each commission may be brou)ht to the Supreme Court on

certiorari by the a))rieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy

thereof.8

This provision is inappicabe as there was no case or matter fied before theCOM;/;C. On the contrary, it was the COM;/;CHs resoution that tri))ered

this Controversy.

The 6case8 or 6matter8 referred to by the constitution must be somethin)

within the %urisdiction of the COM;/;C, i.e., it must pertain to an eection

dispute. The setted rue is that 6decision, ruin)s, order8 of the COM;/;C

that may be brou)ht to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Sec. E Art. 0>B

A are those that reate to the COM;/;CHs e9ercise of its ad%udicatory or

uasiB%udicia powers invovin) 6eective re)iona, provincia and city

officias.8


27/32

0n this case, what is bein) assaied is the COM;/;CHs choice of an appointee

to occupy the


28/32

ISS"E:

3hether or not the Commission on Audit committed )rave abuse of

discretion4

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:

5o. that the case before the i)h Tribuna is moot and academic.

The COA is cothed under Section *'*(, Artice 0>B of the 1"!E Constitution

with the $e9cusive authority, sub%ect to the imitations in this Artice, to

define the scope of its audit and e9amination, estabish the techniues and

methods reuired therefore, and promu)ate accountin) and auditin) rues,

and re)uations incudin) those for the prevention and disaowance of

irre)uar, unnecessary, e9cessive, e9trava)ant or unconscionabee9penditures, or uses of )overnment funds and properties.$

The authority )ranted under this constitutiona provision, bein) broad and

comprehensive enou)h, enabes COA to adopt as its own, simpy by

reiteration or by reference, without the necessity of repromu)ation, aready

e9istin) rues and re)uations. 0t may aso e9pand the covera)e thereof to

a)encies or instrumentaities under its audit %urisdiction. 0t is in this i)ht that

we view COA Memorandum 5o. !!B: issued on Au)ust 1, 1"!!.


29/32


30/32

ma&e representations with F3 to repace ;n)r. Murdoch with a oca

consutant after une ", 1"!E if the pro%ect woud sti be unfinished.

The #Bmonth contract, however, did not satisfy F3. 0t wanted a 1*B

month contract. 0n une 1"!E, it )ot what it wanted. 5A and inhi

si)ned a First Suppementa Contract. 0t e9tended the consutancy

contract for nine '"( more months from une ", 1"!E to March !, 1"!!.

owever, perusa of the documents submitted showed 5A was

compeed to continue the consutancy services of inhi, otherwise,

5A cannot )et reimbursement from the F3 oan to pay their

contractors.

On 5ovember *:, 1""D, 5A reuested for reconsideration.

ISS"E:

3hether or not the petition has merit4

THE CO"RTS R"#ING:

The petition ac&s merit. The power of the Commission on Audit to audit and

e9amine )overnment e9penditures is enshrined in Section * '1(, Artice 0>B

of the 1"!E Constitution, vi-J

"Section 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power,

authority, and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertainin to

the revenue and receipts o!, and expenditures or uses o! !unds and

property, owned or held in trust y, or pertainin to, the #overnment, or

any o! its sudivision, aencies, or instrumentalities, includin

overnment$owned or controlled corporations with oriinal charters, or on

a post audit asis% (a) constitutional odies, commissions, and o!!ices that

have een ranted the !iscal autonomy under this Constitution& xxx."

The Constitution aso )ranted to COA the power to $promu)ate accountin)

and auditin) rues and re)uations, incudin) those for the prevention and


31/32

disaowance of irre)uar, unnecessary, e9cessive, e9trava)ant, or

unconscionabe e9penditures, or uses of )overnment funds and properties.$

=ursuant to the said constitutiona mandate, COA promu)ated Circuar 5o.

!!BBA dated September !, 1"! definin) the term $unnecessary$

e9penditures, vi-J

"The term pertains to expenditures which could not pass the test o! prudence or the

dilience o! a ood !ather o! a !amily, therey denotin non$responsiveness to the

exiencies o! the service. 'nnecessary expenditures are those not supportive o! the

implementation o! the oectives and mission o! the aency relative to the nature o!

its operation. This would also include incurrence o! expenditure not dictated y thedemands o! ood overnment, and those the utility o! which cannot e ascertained

at a speci!ic time. An expenditure that is not essential or that which can e

dispensed with without loss or damae to property is considered unnecessary. The

mission and thrust o! the aency incurrin the expenditures must e considered in

determinin whether or not an expenditure is necessary."

0n Cate9 =hiippines, 0nc. v. COA, we reco)ni-ed the authority of COA to

disaow irre)uar, unnecessary, e9cessive, e9trava)ant or unconscionabe

'0?;;?( e9penditures. 3e ruedJ $Since the COA is responsibe for the

enforcement of the rues and re)uations, it )oes without sayin) that faiure

to compy with them is a )round for disapprovin) the payment of the

proposed e9penditure.$

There can be no dispute on the proposition that the continued e9tension of

the services of ;n)r. Murdoch as a forei)n consutant constitutes at the very

east an unnecessary e9pense. Crysta cear from the records is that the

nature of the termina phase of the a)atBa)atan pro%ect does not reuire

the e9pertise of a forei)n consutant. As eary Apri 1, 1"!E, the necessity of

e9tendin) the services of ;n)r. Murdoch has been uestioned by 5;A

$considerin) the reativey simpe supervision wor& reuired for the fina

sta)es of the pro%ect.$'!( This observation was echoed by COA in its post

audit review of the First and Second Suppementa Contracts, '"( vi-J

"n addition, it is our opinion that the *+ components o! the -aat$

-aatan roect involves simple desin and construction procedures, and

it ein in its !inishin stae, re/uires simple advisory services that can


32/32

e underta0en y A or - in$house technical sta!! or at the most a

local consultant. ence, the A should have made stroner

representations with the *+ !or the hirin o! a local consultant (or none

at all) as re/uired y 3-A."

=etitioner itsef has ta&en the position that the services of ;n)r. Murdoch can

be dispensed with and can we be done by Fiipinos. 0n 1"!E, petitioners

@oard aready directed its mana)ement to ma&e representations with F3 to

repace ;n)r. Murdoch with a Fiipino consutant if the pro%ect woud sti be

unfinished. A)ain, in its memorandum dated 5ovember *:, 1""D, petitioner

cate)oricay admitted that the F3 components of the a)atBa)atan

=ro%ect invoved simpe desi)ns and construction procedures which coudeasiy be handed by a oca consutant. espite a these admissions,

petitioner proceeded to e9tend the unnecessary services of ;n)r. Murdoch

as it consummated the disputed Third Suppementa Contract The amount of

money that was spent for the unnecessary services of ;n)r. Murdoch spea&s

for itsef. =etitioner ar)ues that the renewa of the oan a)reement with the

F3 woud have been %eopardi-ed if it did not a)ree to the e9tension of the

services of ;n)r. Murdoch. The short answer to this ar)ument is that the

imperative necessity to compy with the command of our Constitution

prohibitin) unnecessary e9penses of pubic funds is beyond compromise. 5o

amount of the ami)hty doar can %ustify anybody, especiay forei)ners, to

man)e the mandates of our fundamenta aw. The postuates of our

Constitution are not mere patitudes which we shoud honor ony in rhetorics

but not in reaity. 0n fine, the power to contract a forei)n oan does not carry

with it the authority to bar)ain away the ideas of our Constitution.

The petition for certiorari was dismissed.

Case Digests 18

Documents