G.R. No. 158562 -

Ruling

Accordingly, the audit disallowances as heretofore mentioned are affirmed in toto. [7] A Motion for Reconsideration [8] was subsequently filed by petitioner, but this was likewise denied by respondent COA in COA Decision No. 2003-087, [9] wherein it ruled that although petitioner was correct in arguing that there was no legal impediment to the validity of petitioner's appointment as Vice-President and Treasurer of MGC and to his entitlement to compensation for the second office, "[s]ince the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 has been upheld by the Court insofar as other appointive officials are concerned x x x[,]" however, "of more important consideration is the condition sine qua non , that ` government funds or property shall be spent or used solely for public purpose ' (Section 4(2), PD 1445)." Therefore, respondent COA affirmed its original finding that the disallowed allowances and reimbursements did not satisfy the public purpose requirement. The dispositive portion of the said Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED and the assailed COA Decision No. 2002-213 dated September 24, 2002 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Hence, this Petition wherein petitioner puts forth the following grounds in support: I RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON AUDIT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT USED AS A BASIS THE "PUBLIC PURPOSE" REQUIREMENT IN AFFIRMING THE QUESTIONED DISALLOWANCES II RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCES ON A GROUND [different from the ground] RELIED UPON BY THE RESIDENT AUDITOR III ASSUMING, WITHOUT CONCEDING, THAT THE PUBLIC PURPOSE REQUIREMENT IS RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE, RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON AUDIT STILL COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISALLOWED ALL THE ALLOWANCES RECEIVED BY HEREIN PETITIONER" [10] We rule to deny the instant Petition. As regards the first ground, petitioner puts forward the argument that although it cannot be denied that the MGC, being a government-owned and controlled corporation, is under the jurisdiction of respondent COA, the respondent's act of subjecting the salaries, allowances and benefits of MGC employees to the "public purpose test" is not only wrong, but also an act of grave abuse of discretion since the said salaries, allowances and benefits are intended to compensate MGC employees for services performed on behalf of the corporation. According to petitioner, if the "public purpose requirement" will be applied in auditing these salaries, allowances and benefits being given to government employees, no such compensation could ever pass audit, as, by their very nature, they are solely intended to benefit their recipients, who are the employees of the government department, office, agency or corporation concerned. [11] We cannot countenance petitioner's misleading assertion on th