G.R. No. 250785 - INTRAMUROS ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY VICENTE SANTOS, JR., VS. DIRECTOR COMMISSION ON AUDIT – NATIONAL GOVERNMENT SECTOR – CLUSTER 7 PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORT AND ENERGY – DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the COA CD's decision has become final and executory pursuant to Section 22.1 [20] of the Rules and Regulations on the Settlement of Accounts. [21] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied, [22] hence, this petition. Aggrieved, petitioner raised the same issues it raised before the COA Proper and claimed that: (a) it received the CRA and the incentive bonus in good faith; and (b) the compliance with the NDs will be too burdensome to the employees especially to the regular staff since their income is barely enough to provide for their family's basic needs. [23] In its Comment, [24] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the COA, argued that the petition should have been dismissed outright for having failed to comply with the content requirements mandated by the rules of Court and for having failed to attach a sworn certification against forum shopping. The OSG said that except for Annex G, petitioner failed to attach certified true copies of the assailed decision and all other orders, decisions, and pleadings which they cited in their petition. [25] Lastly, the OSG held that even if the petition had complied with the formal requisites of the Rules of Court, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COA since the petition was filed out of time because the notice of decision was received by petitioner on June 13, 2012 but it belatedly filed a petition before the COA only on October 21, 2015. Issues The issues in this case are: (a) whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the disallowance of petitioner's incentive bonus and CRA; and (b) who shall be liable for the disallowed amount if any. Ruling of the Court The petition is meritorious. To begin with, it is undeniable that the petition was filed out of time. However, if a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the Court is not without power to exercise its judicial discretion in relaxing the rules of procedure. [26] Given the realities obtaining in this case, the liberal construction of the rules warrants its review by the Court. Upon scrutiny of the records of this case, the Court finds that petitioner failed to prove that the COA acted with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the subject NDs. The Court noted that petitioner admitted the fact that the said allowances were given without any legal basis. Moreover, petitioner did not offer any new argument as regards the legality of the allowances and simply argued that they were received it in good faith. Indeed, petitioner was the recipient of allowances that were properly disallowed by the COA. Nevertheless, there is merit to petitioner's contention that it should not be held liable to refund the disallowed amounts. A review of the basis for the grant of the subject allowances showed that these were solely intended as financial assistance to petitioner who suffered the effects of typhoon Ondoy. T