Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review of the Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, Commission on Audit Corporate Government Sector-Cluster 2 Decision No. 2015-021 dated October 7, 2015, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance No.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review of the Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, Commission on Audit Corporate Government Sector-Cluster 2 Decision No. 2015-021 dated October 7, 2015, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance No. 2012-001 dated July 13, 2012, relative to the grant of benefits to ex-officio members of the Board of Directors and their alternates, for the period of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010, in the aggregate amount of [PHP] 4,539,835.02, is AFFIRMED . [7] The separate Motions for Reconsideration filed by Favila and Armando Suratos were likewise denied by the COA Proper in its Resolution in Decision No. 2020-177 dated January 29, 2020. Aggrieved, Favila elevated the case before this Court via a Petition for Certiorari [8] under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court. The petition was anchored on the following grounds and arguments: 1) Favila is entitled to the benefits given to him as the same were granted pursuant to duly issued Board Resolutions and in accordance with the TIDCORP Charter; 2) Favila received the disallowed amount in good faith, as such, he cannot be ordered to refund the same and; 3) the disputed ND was issued in violation of his right to procedural due process. [9] In its Comment [10] dated November 26, 2020, the COA averred that: 1) it did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Favila's appeal for having been filed out of time; 2) it did not violate his right to procedural due process; 3) the assailed Decision is in consonance with prevailing laws and jurisprudence; and 4) Favila benefited from the unlawful grant of the disallowed allowance, and should therefore, refund the amount he received. [11] The assailed Decision dated November 29, 2022 dismissed the petition and affirmed the challenged Decision and Resolution of the COA Proper, which held Favila solidarily liable as the approving officer and recipient of the disallowed amount, and directed him to settle the amount of PHP 4,539,835.02 immediately. The fallo of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE , the petition is DISMISSED . The Decision No. 2019-001 dated January 30, 2019 and the Resolution No. 2020-177 dated January 29, 2020 of the Commission on Audit are hereby AFFIRMED . Peter B. Favila is held solidarily liable as approving officer and recipient of the disallowed amount, and is directed to settle the said amount of PHP 4,539,835.02 immediately. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 223244 - RHODELIA L. SAMBO AND LORYL J. AVILA, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, CHAIRPERSON.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 223244 -
CaseG.R. No. 258100 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 258100 -
CaseG.R. No. 256709 - PHILIPPINE GUARANTEE CORPORATION, FORMERLY TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, COMMISSIONER JOSE A. FABIA AND COMMISSIONER ROLAND C. PONDOC.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 256709 -