G.R. No. 224516 - MARITES DOMATO-TOGONON, VS. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR LEGAL AND ADJUDICATION OFFICE, AND THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF COA REGIONAL OFFICE XII.

Ruling

Wherefore, premises considered, this Office hereby affirms the assailed ND Nos. 05-001-101(04) dated January 18, 2005 and 05-002-101(03) dated January 25, 2005 and hereby excludes the Hon. Jose C. Ledda, Vice Mayor, Hon Rebecca C. Bona, Hon. Pablito S. Subere and Hon. Jose Henry D. Aguirre, all members of the Sangguniang Panlun[g]sod of Koronadal City, from the list of persons liable in the herein Notice of Disallowance. [20] When their motions and appeals were denied, [21] Togonon and the other concerned officials [22] filed a Petition for Review before the Commission on Audit. [23] Nonetheless, in its Decision, [24] the Commission on Audit denied the petition for review and upheld the Notices of Disallowance: WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . Accordingly, LAO-Local Resolution No. 2007-014 dated 11 July 2007, affirming LAO-Local Decision No. 2006-63 dated May 18, 2006 which upheld ND Nos. 05-001-101(04) and 05-002-101(3) dated January 18, 2005 and January 25, 2005, respectively, in the total amount of P2,398,403.02, is AFFIRMED . [25] (Emphasis in the original) The Commission on Audit agreed with the Legal and Adjudication Office's finding that Koronadal City's payment of taxes and fees was an indirect imposition of tax against the city. It ruled that Section 133(o) of the Local Government Code prohibits the enactment of measures that impose taxes, fees, or charges on local government units. [26] It further decreed that nowhere in the Local Government Code does it authorize the Sangguniang Panlungsod to legislate exemptions or to shift the burden of national taxes, especially when it benefits a particular individual. [27] It likewise noted that the Deed of Absolute Sale did not state that the notarial and registration fees shall be shouldered by Koronadal City, as the vendee. [28] Nonetheless, the Commission on Audit acknowledged that it had no power to nullify legislative enactments and, therefore, did not declare Resolution No. 746 void. [29] On September 16, 2013, the Commission on Audit's Decision became final, and a corresponding Notice of Finality of Decision was issued. [30] Mayor Miguel and Togonon moved to set aside the Notice of Finality of Decision, contending that neither of them received a copy of the Decision. [31] The Commission on Audit Proper En Banc later lifted the Notice insofar as Togonon was concerned. She was given 30 days to file a motion for reconsideration. [32] Togonon did move for reconsideration, but it was dismissed in the December 23, 2015 Resolution for her failure to raise new matters to modify the assailed Decision. [33] Aggrieved, Togonon filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari against public respondent Commission on Audit, along with the Legal and Adjudication Office and the Regional Director of the Commission on Audit's Regional Office XII. Petitioner argues that the Commission on Audit gravely abused its discretion when it did not recognize the payment of taxes as part of the contract's consider