Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREME COURT
Manila
-oOo-
-versus-
PETITION
COME NOW, Petitioners, thru the undersigned counsels and unto the
Honorable Court, most respectfully submit the foregoing Petition as follows:
THE PARTIES
The facts salient to the resolution of the issues in this case are as
follows:
“MALACAÑANG
Manila
shuttle service
3
Done in the City of Manila, this 13th day of May, in the year
of Our Lord Two Thousand and Nine.
[Signed]
Gloria M. Arroyo
By the President:
[Signed]
EDUARDO R. ERMITA
Executive Secretary”
(Emphasis supplied).
Emphasis supplied.”
On July 21, 2010, an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No.
ZCWD-2010-05(09) (hereto attached as ANNEX “H”) was issued by
Respondent’s Audit Team No. 4, Audit Group C – Corporate Government
Sector, COA Regional Office IX, Zamboanga City, and received by
Petitioner last 27 July 2010. It was observed by Respondent that:
Shuttle service
Financial subsidy and other needed support to make the
Botica ng Bayan more accessible to them
Scholarships programs for their children with siblings
PX mart that sell affordable commodities and the
provision of its seed fund
ELVIRA B. VILLANUEVA
Audit Team Leader
ESTRELLA B. AVILA
Supervising Auditor”
7
“NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
8
[SIGNED]
NILDA B. PLARAS
Director IV
Commission Secretary”
Hence this PETITION.
TIMELINESS
holding that Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 174 s. 2009 does not
authorize direct payment of financial subsidy to government
employees, despite the clear mandate of the same MC No. 174 s.
2009, which in fact enjoins all government agencies including
government –owned and –controlled corporations such as herein
Petitioner, to provide certain benefits to its employees;
“x-x-x
Shuttle service
Financial subsidy and other needed support to make the
Botika ng Bayan more accessible to them.x-x-x”
Emphasis supplied.
11
Emphasis supplied.
1
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation, G.R. No. 159647, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA
414, 443; National Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Commission, 383 Phil. 910, 918 (2000)
2
Enjay, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 315 Phil. 648, 656 (1995); Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio
Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992, 206 SCRA 701, 711
12
“x-x-x
3
G.R. No. 158562, 23 April 2010
4
Blacks Law Dictionary, p. 1231, (6th ed., 1990), citing Pack v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 215 Tenn. 503, 387 S.W.
2d 789, 794
5
Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, Nos. L-60549, 60553-60555, October 26, 1983, 125 SCRA 220, 223
6
Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 485, 510-511
7
Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992, 208 SCRA 133, 155
8
Binay v. Domingo, G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 1991, 201 SCRA 508, 516
13
Emphasis supplied.
The Whereas clauses of MC No. 174 s. 2009 have thus precisely laid
the raison d'être for the grant of the financial subsidy, thus:
“x-x-x
In holding that MC No. 174 s. 2009 does not intend to authorize direct
payment of financial subsidy to government employees and the Board
Resolution issued pursuant thereto has no legal basis, Respondent miserably
failed to consider the opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel (OGCC) that the Board has sufficient discretion and authority to
determine the amount of the financial subsidy that it will grant through a
board resolution.
In a long line of cases, the Honorable Court has excused from liability
recipients of amounts which were disallowed in audit, such as: Nazareth v.
COA, et. al., G.R. No. 188635, 29 January 2013 where it was held that:
“Nevertheless, our pronouncement in Blaquera v. Alcala supports
petitioners’ position on the refund of the benefits they received. In Blaquera,
the officials and employees of several government departments and agencies
were paid incentive benefits which the COA disallowed on the ground that
Administrative Order No. 29 dated 19 January 1993 prohibited payment of
these benefits. While the court sustained the COA on the disallowance, it
nevertheless declared that: ‘Considering however, that all the parties here
acted in good faith, we cannot countenance the refund of subject incentive
benefits for the year 1992, which amounts the petitioners have already
received. Indeed, no indicia of bad faith can be detected under the attendant
facts and circumstances. The officials and chiefs of offices concerned
disbursed such incentive benefits in the honest belief that the amounts given
were due to the recipients and the latter accepted the same with gratitude,
confident that they richly deserve such benefits.”
retirement and gratuity pay remuneration in the honest belief that the
amounts given were due to the recipients and the latter acceptance the same
with gratitude, confident that they richly deserve such reward.”
In Abanilla, et. al., v. COA, et. al., G.R. No. 142347, 25 August
2007, it was held that “While we sustain the disallowance of the above
benefits by respondent COA, however, we find that the MCWD affected
personnel who received the above mentioned benefits and privileges acted
in good faith under the honest belief that the CBA authorized such payment.
Consequently, they need not refund them.
And in De Jesus, et. al., v. COA, G.R. No. 149154, 10 June 2003, it
was similarly held that “This ruling in Blaquera applies to the instant case.
Petitioners here received the additional allowances and bonuses in good
faith under the honest belief that LWUA Board Resolution No. 313
authorized such payment. At the time petitioners received the additional
allowances and bonuses, the Court had not yet decided Baybay Water
District. Petitioners had no knowledge that such payment was without legal
basis. Thus, being in good faith, petitioners need not refund the allowances
and bonuses they received but disallowed by the COA.”
provision that Decisions rendered must clearly and distinctly state the facts
and the law on which it is based.
PRAYER
Such other relief and remedies warranted under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
11th day of June 2015, in the City of Zamboanga, for the City of Manila,
Philippines.
Contact details:
+63 916 477 5551
lovellabadLMSD@gmail.com
Contact details:
+63917 322 5382
mam.paredes@zcwd.gov.ph
19
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition and have
read and understood the allegations contained therein and the same
are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on
authentic records;
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2015
20
COPY FURNISHED:
1. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
Philippines
Registry Receipt No. _______________
5. Ms. ANABELLA UY
COA Audit Team Leader – ZCWD
Cabatangan Hills, Zamboanga City
Registry Receipt No. _______________
EXPLANATION
The foregoing Reply was served on Respondents and all other parties
furnished with copies thereof by registered mail instead of personal service
due to distance and geographical constraints.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
-oOo-
-versus-
21
PETITION
COME NOW, Petitioners, thru the undersigned counsels and unto the
Honorable Court, most respectfully submit the foregoing Petition as follows:
THE PARTIES
The facts salient to the resolution of the issues in this case are as
follows:
“MALACAÑANG
Manila
shuttle service
financial subsidy and other needed support to make the
Botika ng Bayan more accessible to them
scholarships programs for their children with siblings
PX mart that sell affordable commodities and to ensure
theh implementation of this Circular.
Done in the City of Manila, this 13th day of May, in the year
of Our Lord Two Thousand and Nine.
23
[Signed]
Gloria M. Arroyo
By the President:
[Signed]
EDUARDO R. ERMITA
Executive Secretary”
(Emphasis supplied).
Emphasis supplied.”
25
Shuttle service
Financial subsidy and other needed support to make the
Botica ng Bayan more accessible to them
Scholarships programs for their children with siblings
PX mart that sell affordable commodities and the
provision of its seed fund
ELVIRA B. VILLANUEVA
Audit Team Leader
ESTRELLA B. AVILA
Supervising Auditor”
o.
JV No. 2009- 12-09- P5,127,523 Rolando M. Pantaleon,
12-018 2009 .00 et. al
“NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
[SIGNED]
NILDA B. PLARAS
Director IV
Commission Secretary”
Hence this PETITION.
TIMELINESS
“x-x-x
Shuttle service
Financial subsidy and other needed support to make the
Botika ng Bayan more accessible to them.x-x-x”
Emphasis supplied.
10
Enjay, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 315 Phil. 648, 656 (1995); Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio
Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 82511, March 3, 1992, 206 SCRA 701, 711
31
Emphasis supplied.
In the case of Ramon R. Yap vs. Commission on Audit 11, the Supreme
Court had the opportunity to discuss the meaning of public purpose as
contemplated in Section 4 of PD No. 1445, thus:
“x-x-x
11
G.R. No. 158562, 23 April 2010
32
Emphasis supplied.
The Whereas clauses of MC No. 174 s. 2009 have thus precisely laid
the raison d'être for the grant of the financial subsidy, thus:
“x-x-x
13
Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, Nos. L-60549, 60553-60555, October 26, 1983, 125 SCRA 220, 223
14
Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 485, 510-511
15
Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992, 208 SCRA 133, 155
16
Binay v. Domingo, G.R. No. 92389, September 11, 1991, 201 SCRA 508, 516
33
In a long line of cases, the Honorable Court has excused from liability
recipients of amounts which were disallowed in audit, such as: Nazareth v.
COA, et. al., G.R. No. 188635, 29 January 2013 where it was held that:
“Nevertheless, our pronouncement in Blaquera v. Alcala supports
petitioners’ position on the refund of the benefits they received. In Blaquera,
the officials and employees of several government departments and agencies
were paid incentive benefits which the COA disallowed on the ground that
Administrative Order No. 29 dated 19 January 1993 prohibited payment of
these benefits. While the court sustained the COA on the disallowance, it
nevertheless declared that: ‘Considering however, that all the parties here
acted in good faith, we cannot countenance the refund of subject incentive
benefits for the year 1992, which amounts the petitioners have already
received. Indeed, no indicia of bad faith can be detected under the attendant
facts and circumstances. The officials and chiefs of offices concerned
disbursed such incentive benefits in the honest belief that the amounts given
were due to the recipients and the latter accepted the same with gratitude,
confident that they richly deserve such benefits.”
In Abanilla, et. al., v. COA, et. al., G.R. No. 142347, 25 August
2007, it was held that “While we sustain the disallowance of the above
benefits by respondent COA, however, we find that the MCWD affected
personnel who received the above mentioned benefits and privileges acted
in good faith under the honest belief that the CBA authorized such payment.
Consequently, they need not refund them.
And in De Jesus, et. al., v. COA, G.R. No. 149154, 10 June 2003, it
was similarly held that “This ruling in Blaquera applies to the instant case.
35
In holding that MC No. 174 s. 2009 does not intend to authorize direct
payment of financial subsidy to government employees and the Board
Resolution issued pursuant thereto has no legal basis, Respondent miserably
failed to consider the opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel (OGCC) that the Board has sufficient discretion and authority to
determine the amount of the financial subsidy that it will grant through a
board resolution.
PRAYER
Such other relief and remedies warranted under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
11th day of June 2015, in the City of Zamboanga, for the City of Manila,
Philippines.
Contact details:
+63 916 477 5551
lovellabadLMSD@gmail.com
Contact details:
+63917 322 5382
mam.paredes@zcwd.gov.ph
38
7. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition and have
read and understood the allegations contained therein and the same
are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on
authentic records;
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2015
39
COPY FURNISHED:
6. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
Philippines
Registry Receipt No. _______________
10.Ms. ANABELLA UY
COA Audit Team Leader – ZCWD
Cabatangan Hills, Zamboanga City
Registry Receipt No. _______________
EXPLANATION
The foregoing Reply was served on Respondents and all other parties
furnished with copies thereof by registered mail instead of personal service
due to distance and geographical constraints.