NAYONG PILIPINO FOUNDATION, INC. v. TAN, ET AL. AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT G.R. No.

213200,
September 19, 2017

FACTS:

On June 6, 2000, in commemoration of NPFI's 30th Founding Anniversary, NPFI Board of Trustees,
through Board Resolution No. 63-0606000, authorized the grant to its officers and employees who have
rendered services for at least one (1) year, an Anniversary Bonus amounting to Php 3,000.00 each.

In May 2004, NPFI's Board of Trustees issued Board Resolution No. 82-052104, where on the occasion of
NPFI's 35th Founding Anniversary, it authorized the grant of Anniversary Bonus amounting to a total of
Php 108,000.00 to its trustees, employees, and Job Order personnel. On even date, Board Resolution
No. 95-120804 was passed authorizing the release to the same recipients, Extra Cash Gift in the total
amount of Php 90,500.00.

For 2004, NPFI paid a total of Php 132,000.00 as honoraria to the members of its BAC and TWG.

On February 4, 2005, COA issued Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. 2004-002, finding that the
grant of NPFI in May 2004 of Anniversary Bonus and Extra Cash Gift amounting to Php 108,000.00 and
Php 90,500.00, respectively have no legal basis nor approval of thePresident; and AOM No. 2004-003,
stating that NPFI did not submit the required exemption from the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) for the payment of honoraria to its BAC and TWG members.

ISSUE:

Whether the COA gravely abused its discretion when it disallowed NPFI's payment of Anniversary Bonus
and Extra Cash Gift to its trustees, officials and personnel; and honoraria to its BAC and TWG members

HELD:

No.

The COA, by mandate of the 1987 Constitution, is the guardian of public funds, vested of broad powers
over all accounts pertaining to government revenue and expenditures and the uses of public funds and
property, including the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, to establish
the techniques and methods for such review, and to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and
regulations. In the exercise of its constitutional duty, the COA is given a wide latitude of discretion “to
determine, prevent, and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable
expenditures of government funds” and has the power to ascertain whether public funds were utilized
for the purpose for which they had been intended by law.

To warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court and set aside the Decision of the COA, the petitioner must show that the latter acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. The abuse of discretion must be grave in that there
is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Abuse of
discretion is grave when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law
and evidence but on caprice, whim, and despotism.