G.R. No. 235832 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, CHAIRPERSON, AND ANGELINA B. VILLANUEVA, DIRECTOR IV.

Ruling

accordingly, affirmed the NDs in the total amount of P204,072,574.37. [17] Aggrieved, PHIC filed its Petition for Review [18] with the COA Proper. Ruling of the COA Proper In the assailed Decision No. 2016-436 dated December 27, 2016, the COAProper dismissed the petition for review as regards ND No. 09-005-725(08) for lack of merit; and for late filing with respect to the remaining NDs. The dispositive portion of Decision No. 2016-436 reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review of Dr. Eduardo P. Banzon, President and Chief Executive Officer, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, Pasig City, of Commission on Audit Corporate Government Sector A Decision No. 2012-11 dated July 12, 2012 insofar as Notice of Disallowance No. 09-005-725(08) dated November 20, 2009 with the total amount of P16,275,578.16 is concerned, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. With respect to Notice of Disallowance. Nos. PHIC 2008-056(07) to 2008-60(07), all dated December 18, 2008; HO 2009-001 dated September 14, 2009; and HO 2009-002 and HO 2009-003, both dated September 30, 2009, with the total amount of P187,796,996.21, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED for being filed out of time. [19] According to the COA Proper, PHIC failed to file a petition for review relative to ND Nos. 2008-056(07) to 2008-60(07) and HO 2009-001 to 2009-003 within the reglementary period of 180 days or six months. Because of this, the decision sustaining the NDs already became final and executory. While PHIC filed a motion for extension of time to file petition, the COA Proper did not act on it and PHIC could not assume that the belated filing of the petition was justified. Relative to ND No. 09-005-725, the COA Proper decreed that the amount of f 16,275,578.16 representing payment of Efficiency Gift to PHIC employees for CY 2007 was disallowed for lack of approval from the OP. [20] It stressed that even if PHIC is exempt from the coverage of the Office of Compensation and Position Classification, it should report to the OP, through the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), its position classification and compensation plans. It underscored that the prior approval of the OP did not remove from the BOD of PHIC the power to fix compensation and allowances of its personnel, but requires it to submit its plans to the OP, through the DBM, to comply with the law. The COA Proper also determined that the officials of PHIC who authorized, approved or certified the subject grants could not be deemed in good faith since the law requires the prior approval of the OP. It further ruled that in its earlier Decision Nos. 2014-332 and 2014-665 dated September 12, 2014, it affirmed the disallowance on similar benefits. Thus, it held that the PHIC officials were not in good faith due to such previous NDs on the same subject matter. Regarding the recipient-employees, the COA Proper decreed that they might be in good faith but under the principle of solutio indebiti , a person who receive so