SC upholds COA demand for refund of P21M Capitol bonus
After a lengthy wait and extensive legal battle, the Supreme Court (SC) en banc in a resolution dated March 4, 2008, but was made available to the media only yesterday, affirmed the decision of the Commission On Audit (COA) declaring over P21 million in Iloilo Provincial Government bonus illegal.
As such, full refund is expected with the decision repeatedly affirmed since the Commission came out with its refund-order.
The SC Resolution cited three grounds in denying the Petition for Review citing technicalities that led to the denial of said Petition for Review sought. Such, alongside the explanation, "In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for failure thereof to sufficiently show that public respondent Commission On Audit committed any reversible error in the challenged decisions as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this Case."
And the SC did not stop there.
"Moreover, if the petition were treated as a special civil action under Rule 65 of the aforesaid Rules (Rules of Court), the same would also be dismissed for failure to sufficiently show that there any grave abuse of discretion was committed," excerpts of the SC ruling went.
Docketed UDK-13996 entitled Provincial Government of Iloilo vs. Commission on Audit, technicalities were 'blamed' on Capitol's lawyer.
The Petition apparently did not comply with the basic need for required verification and non-forum shopping "as the same was insufficient/defective for failure of petitioner's counsel to show that he has a special power of attorney to sign said verification and for non-compliance with the required competent evidence of identity under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as the affiant on the verification did not present any identification before the notary public while the affiant of the Affidavit of Service presented only his Community Tax Certificate before the notary public."
Secondly came the "failure to pay the docket fees in violation of Rule 64, section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;" and lastly, "being the wrong remedy pursuant to Rule 64 of aforesaid Rules."
Earlier, the COA stood pat on its decision stating only a Certiorari from the SC or a similar ruling can save the officials and employees here from returning the demanded amount.
Otherwise, all P21,001,364.00 must immediately be replenished by the IPG management.
The clarification was then made by State Auditor V Arlene Togonon, COA Regional Cluster Director in a The News Today (TNT) interview.
The lady auditor also added that as far as the Commission is concerned, the post-audit made back in January 2003 and corresponding Notice of Disallowance issued thereafter is valid, just and legal.
In fact, the COA, she shared, did everything that can be done to accommodate the earlier appeal as sought by the IPG.
"It is final. It stays," State Auditor V Togonon for the COA's part said.
The order for refund resurfaced after the COA affirmed "with finality" Decision 2007-005 penned by COA chairman Guillermo Carague and Commissioners Reynaldo Villar and Juanito Espino Jr.
"After an evaluation of the arguments raised, it is shown that these have been judiciously passed upon by this Commission in the assailed Decision. In view thereof and considering also that no new material evidence have been presented that would warrant a reversal or modification of the assailed Decision, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED and COA Decision No. 2007-005 dated February 15, 2007 is AFFIRMED with finality," the Resolution went.
The controversial Capitol bonus was distributed by the governor back in 2002. The governor's contention was that no refund was necessary following a supposed condonation from no less than President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The COA refused to budge on its findings. It cannot be considered as basis to life the audit disallowances, the COA maintained.
It cannot be justified as an exercise of an allegedly plenary and absolute legislative power, the COA also asserted with a reminder that the legislative prerogative of the Local government unit is only a delegated power and not an inherent one.
The Capitol in its defense also argued "good faith" yet the COA junked the same.
"As to the defense of good faith, the same cannot be appreciated considering that the payments were clearly contrary to law and regulations. The Province of Iloilo disregarded the provisions of the law in giving additional incentives to its officials and employees," the COA added. "Evidently, the officials and employees were already aware of the lack of legal basis of the grant when they received the same. Thus the province cannot invoke good faith under the circumstances. As a consequence thereof, the officials and employees are obliged to refund the amount they received."