G.R. No. 103309 - NOVEMBER 1992 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 103309November 27, 1992 Benito M. Bustamante vs. Commissioner On Audit G.R. Nos. 100374-75November 27, 1992 Rufino Y. Luna, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 99302November 27, 1992 German P. Zagada vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 91189November 27, 1992 The Director of Lands vs. Samuel Buyco, et al. A.M. No. MTJ-92-643November 27, 1992 Louis Vuitton vs. Francisco Diaz Villanueva G.R. No. 102383November 26, 1992 Bank of the Philippines Islands vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 97619November 26, 1992 Spouses Socrates Pilapil, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 96492November 26, 1992 Romeo Reyes, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 94396November 27, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 89775November 26, 1992 Jacinto Uy Diño, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G. R. Nos. 72991-92November 26, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Floro Yadao, et al. G.R. Nos. 103752-53November 25, 1992 Amado M. Calderon vs. Solicitor General, et al. G.R. No. 61584November 25, 1992 Donato S. Paulmitan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 95550November 23, 1992 Maximo Uy, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 78490November 23, 1992 Wack Wack Cond. Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 62305November 23, 1992 Angel R. Sampaga vs. People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. 101501November 20, 1992 Jose Villanueva, Sr. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr., et al. G.R. No. 101250November 20, 1992 Caños Medical Center, Inc., et al. vs. Cresencio B. Trajano, et al. G.R. No. 98427November 20, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Winnie B. Labra G.R. No. 102358November 19, 1992 Vicente And Gloria Manalo vs. Nieves Roldan-Confesor, et al. G.R. No. 96832November 19, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Teotimo Danao G.R. No. 88670November 19, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Rebecca A. Ventura G.R. No. 103558November 17, 1992 Metropolitan Waterworks And Sewerage Sys. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 104875November 13, 1992 Florante F. Manacop vs. Court of Appeals, et al., et al. G.R. No. 102855November 13, 1992 Dionicia Villanueva-Ricafrente, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 101577November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Victor F. Olivar G.R. No. 101372November 13, 1992 Pilipinas Bank vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 99308November 13, 1992 State Investment House, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 98275November 13, 1992 Ba Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 98362November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. George Agustin Y Pocno G.R. No. 96441November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Honorio G. Mabunga G.R. No. 93729November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Deogracias Jalon G.R. No. 89876November 13, 1992 Pangasinan III Elec. Coop., Inc. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 89543November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo B. Argawanon G.R. No. 88042November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Sagadsad, et al. G.R. No. 84460November 13, 1992 First Plywood Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 82223-24November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Matrimonio G.R. No. 77228November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Domnino G. Grefiel G.R. No. 73725November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Winston Gonzales G.R. No. 72703November 13, 1992 Caltex (Phils.), Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 66034November 13, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Jovito T. Tujon G.R. NO. 41314November 13, 1992 Union Carbide Labor Union vs. Union Carbide Philippines, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 83433November 12, 1992 Conrado Tiu, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 75920November 12, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Teresita S. Singson G.R. No. 86561November 10, 1992 Pablo Bernardo vs. Cecilio F. Balagot G.R. No. 104158November 6, 1992 Gemiliano Lopez, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. NO. 103215November 6, 1992 Maranaw Hotels And Resorts Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 102940November 6, 1992 Adelpha Fernandez, et al. vs. Ruben Torres, et al. G.R. No. 102128November 6, 1992 Abundia Espina vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 102023November 6, 1992 Ramon M. Abiera vs. National Labor Relations Commission , et al. G.R. No. 101799November 6, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Pacifico D. Rodriguez G.R. No. 95546November 6, 1992 Makati Tuscany Cond. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 93237November 6, 1992 Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Nat'l. Telecommunication Com., et al. G.R. No. 85869November 6, 1992 The National Irrigation Adm. vs. Estanislao Gamit, et al. G.R. No. 77104November 6, 1992 Jose Tongson, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. RTJ-91-764November 6, 1992 Pete M. Pico vs. Alfonso V. Combong, Jr. G.R. No. 101251November 5, 1992 Eliseo A. Sinon vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 97381November 5, 1992 Benigno V. Magpale, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. 51593November 5, 1992 Nat'l. Dev't. Co. vs. Augusto Pacis, et al. G.R. No. 105964November 4, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Rizalito De Guzman, et al. G.R. No. 101663November 4, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Eric F. Timtiman G.R. No. 94187November 4, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Tirso Garcia, et al. G.R. No. 87884November 4, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio R. Cruz G.R. No. 75290November 4, 1992 Amado T. Gurango, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 71189November 4, 1992 Faberge, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Benito M. Bustamante vs. Commissioner On Audit Rufino Y. Luna, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. German P. Zagada vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. The Director of Lands vs. Samuel Buyco, et al. Louis Vuitton vs. Francisco Diaz Villanueva Bank of the Philippines Islands vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Spouses Socrates Pilapil, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Romeo Reyes, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jacinto Uy Diño, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Floro Yadao, et al. Amado M. Calderon vs. Solicitor General, et al. Donato S. Paulmitan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Maximo Uy, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Wack Wack Cond. Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Angel R. Sampaga vs. People of the Philippines, et al. Jose Villanueva, Sr. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr., et al. Caños Medical Center, Inc., et al. vs. Cresencio B. Trajano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Winnie B. Labra Vicente And Gloria Manalo vs. Nieves Roldan-Confesor, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Teotimo Danao People of the Philippines vs. Rebecca A. Ventura Metropolitan Waterworks And Sewerage Sys. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Florante F. Manacop vs. Court of Appeals, et al., et al. Dionicia Villanueva-Ricafrente, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Victor F. Olivar Pilipinas Bank vs. National Labor Relations Commission State Investment House, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Ba Finance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. George Agustin Y Pocno People of the Philippines vs. Honorio G. Mabunga People of the Philippines vs. Deogracias Jalon Pangasinan III Elec. Coop., Inc. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Commission People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo B. Argawanon People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Sagadsad, et al. First Plywood Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Matrimonio People of the Philippines vs. Domnino G. Grefiel People of the Philippines vs. Winston Gonzales Caltex (Phils.), Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jovito T. Tujon Union Carbide Labor Union vs. Union Carbide Philippines, Inc., et al. Conrado Tiu, et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Teresita S. Singson Pablo Bernardo vs. Cecilio F. Balagot Gemiliano Lopez, Jr., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Maranaw Hotels And Resorts Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Adelpha Fernandez, et al. vs. Ruben Torres, et al. Abundia Espina vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ramon M. Abiera vs. National Labor Relations Commission , et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pacifico D. Rodriguez Makati Tuscany Cond. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Nat'l. Telecommunication Com., et al. The National Irrigation Adm. vs. Estanislao Gamit, et al. Jose Tongson, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Pete M. Pico vs. Alfonso V. Combong, Jr. Eliseo A. Sinon vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. Benigno V. Magpale, Jr. vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. Nat'l. Dev't. Co. vs. Augusto Pacis, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rizalito De Guzman, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Eric F. Timtiman People of the Philippines vs. Tirso Garcia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Antonio R. Cruz Amado T. Gurango, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. Faberge, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 103309 November 27, 1992
BENITO M. BUSTAMANTEpetitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONER ON AUDIT, and MARTHA ROXANA T. CABURIAN,respondents.
CAMPOS, JR.J.:
This petition forcertiorariwith Preliminary Injunction seeks to annul and set aside the Decision of the respondent Commissioner on Audit (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), dated February 5, 1991 which denied due course to the appeal of petitioner from the disallowance by Regional Auditor Martha Roxana Caburian of petitioner's claim for transportation allowance for the period covering the month of January 1989 in the amount of P1,250.00.
Petitioner is the Regional Legal Counsel of the National Power Corporation (NPC) for the Northern Luzon Regional Center covering the provinces of Rizal up to Batanes. 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.
In a letter to the said Regional Auditor dated June 18, 1990, the petitioner moved for reconsideration of the disallowance of the claim for transportation allowance. The Regional Auditor denied petitioner's motion in a letter dated June 27, 1990. Petitioner appealed this denial to the Commission on Audit at Quezon City, which denied do due course.
Hence this petition.
The issue to be resolved is whether such denial to give due course to the appeal of herein petitioner constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
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.1
It is beyond dispute that the discretion exercised in the denial of the appeal is within the power of the Commission on Audit as it is provided in the Constitution:
Sec. 2. The Commission on Audit shall have the following powers and functions:
(1) Examine, audit, and settle, in accordance with law and regulations, and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations; keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period vouchers pertaining thereto; and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds and property. . . . (Article XII-D, 1973 Constitution)2
In the exercise of such power it promulgated COA Circular No. 75-6 dated November 7, 1975, regulating the use of government motor vehicles, aircrafts and watercrafts, which, among others, provides:
VI. Prohibition Against Use of Government Vehicles by Officials provided with transportation allowance ––
No official which has been furnished motor transportation allowance by any government corporations or other office shall be allowed to use mother vehicle transportation operated and maintained from funds appropriated in the abovecited Decree. (Sec. 14, P.D. 733)
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. We do not agree with him for 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. Petitioner goes on to argue that existing NPC policy grants transportation allowance to employees in the likes of petitioner. Under the NPC Charter, R.A. 6395, petitioner contends that the NPC has the power to formulate and adopt policies and measures for the management and operation of the NPC.3Pursuant thereto, NPC passed Resolution No. 81-95 dated April 20, 1981 authorizing the monthly reimbursement of representation and transportation allowance. This was implemented by Circular 81-11 dated April 22, 1988. He then contends that the COA Circular Nos. 7506 and 75-6A should be limited in their application to the NPC.
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.
The factual finding of the Commission that petitioner was indeed assigned a government, vehicle is conclusive upon this Court. The petitioner faults respondent Regional Auditor for relying on her serious doubts as to the nature of the use of the vehicle assigned to petitioner as basis for the disallowance. We hold, however, that such issue is immaterial in the case at bar for the COA circular, in prohibiting the use of motor vehicles by officials receiving transportation allowance, is categorical. The use of government motor vehicle and the claim for transportation allowance are mutually exclusive. It is on this basis that the P1,250.00 transportation allowance was disallowed.
Construed in the light of the applicable law and rules on the matter, the decision of the Commissioner on Audit disallowing the petitioner's claim for transportation allowance does not indicate a grave abuse of discretion which will warrant setting aside and nullifying the said COA ruling.
WHEREOF, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, and Melo, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Dimayacyac vs. Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA 265 (1970); Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Mfg. Co., Inc. vs. National Administrator of Regional Office No. 2, Dept. of Labor, 14 SCRA 1019 (1965); Hamoy vs. Hon. Sec. of Agriculture & Natural Resources, et al., 106 Phil. 1046 (1960).
2 The corresponding provision in the 1987 Constitution reads as follows:
Sec. 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by or pertaining to, the government, or any of the its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. . . .
(2) The Commission shall have exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in the 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 prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties. (Article IX-D).
3 R.A. 6395, Sec. 6 (a).