G.R. No. 238940 - ANTONIETA ABELLA, MANCIO DANILO ALEGADO, ALBERTO BUCA, AURORA CABALLES, JUDITH CALO, JOSEPHINE CHUA, JOYCE HIDALGO, ALDEBERAN MORDENO, LORDEN VISMANOS, WILFREDO SAGUSAY, AND AURORA ZAPORTIZA, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT PROPER AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XIII, BUTUAN CI

Ruling

Accordingly, a Notice of Finality of Decision (NFD) and Final Order of Adjudication (now COA Order of Execution) were issued on October 26, 2009. [10] Meanwhile, the City Government of Butuan continued to appropriate and grant EME to its officials until 2010. [11] Consequently, eight more NDs [12] (2009 NDs) were issued in March 2009, disallowing the EMEs paid in 2008 for a total amount of P2,177,463.16. [13] An appeal was filed but was denied in COA Regional Office XIII Decision No. 2011-046. [14] On January 24, 2012, 87 more NDs [15] (2012 NDs) were issued, disallowing all other EMEs paid from 2004 to 2009. Petitioners, as recipients held liable to settle the disallowances, appealed all 2012 NDs, together with seven [16] of the 2009 NDs, to the COA Regional Office XIII on July 31, 2012. In its Decision No. 2013-007 [17] dated May 6, 2013, the COA Regional Office No. XIII denied the consolidated appeals for lack of merit. The disallowances were sustained in accordance with DBM Legal Opinion No. L-B-2001-10. The Regional Director ruled that the DBM is empowered under Section 326 of the LGC to review appropriation ordinances. Since DBM Legal Opinion No. L-B-2001-10 has never been questioned, it remains valid and effective, leaving the EME disbursements without legal basis. Thus, petitioners cannot claim any legal right over the EMEs paid to them. An appeal was lodged before the COA Proper but was likewise denied for lack of merit in the assailed Decision No. 2016-488. [18] The COA Proper affirmed the COA Regional Office XIII Decision No. 2013-007 as regards the 2012 NDs . On the other hand, the COA Proper found that the 2009 NDs were already affirmed in COA Regional Office XIII Decision No. 2011-046, and no appeal from that decision was filed within the reglementary period; hence, an NFD and an Order of Execution were ordered to be issued therefor. [19] In the present recourse, petitioners invoke their right to speedy disposition of cases since the proceedings before the COA Regional Office XIII took more than one (1) year and four (4) months from the issuance of the NDs on January 24, 2012, up to the time its Decision No. 2013-007 was rendered. [20] Thereafter, it took another three (3) years and seven (7) months for the COA Proper to resolve the appeal. Substantively, petitioners argue that they are not legally bound by the DBM Legal Opinion as it was issued as a response to the SP's query, to which they are not signatories. [21] Petitioners further claim that the EME disallowances are anathema to the city government's constitutionally-guaranteed fiscal autonomy. Lastly, petitioners invoke good faith as passive recipients of the disallowed EMEs to exculpate them from the liability to refund. [22] For its part, the COA Proper maintains that the period dedicated to the resolution of the case did not exceed the reasonable limits for the work involved. It contends that there is no showing that the apparent delay is vexatious, capricious, and oppress