G.R. No. 223547 -

Ruling

Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance No. 2012-100-001(09&10) dated May 10, 2012, amounting to P283,965.00 is AFFIRMED . [27] (Emphasis in the original.) On April 23, 2014, petitioners received a copy of Decision No. 2014- 35. [28] They filed a Petition for Review [29] before the COA Proper on April 30, 2014 reiterating their arguments, but it was denied in Decision No. 2015-190 [30] dated April 13, 2015 for being filed out of time: WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time. Accordingly, Commission on Audit Regional Office No. IV-A Decision No. 2014-35 dated April 15, 2014, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance No. 2012-100-001 (09&10) dated May 10, 2012, on the payment of various allowances and benefits to the Members of the Board of Directors of Pagsanjan Water District for the years 2009 and 2010 in the total amount of [P]283,965.00, is FINAL AND EXECUTORY . [31] (Emphasis in the original.) Undaunted, petitioners sought reconsideration, but were likewise denied in the COA Proper's Resolution dated December 23, 2015. The Notice [32] of the denial reads: The [COA Proper] denied the motion for reconsideration. The assailed Decision correctly held that COA Regional Office IV-A Decision No. 2014-35 dated April 15, 2014 has attained finality, and is thus, immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect. [33] Hence, this Petition. Issues Whether the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' Petition for Review for being filed out of time; and Whether the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the ND No. 2012-100-001(09 & 10). Ruling We dismiss the Petition. No less than the Constitution vested the COA, as the guardian of public funds, with enough latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. In the exercise of its constitutional duty, the COA is accorded plenary discretion, and the Court generally sustains its decisions in recognition of its expertise in the laws it is entrusted to enforce. Only when the COA acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion may the Court grant a petition assailing the COA's actions. There is grave abuse of discretion only when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism. [34] This complements the limited scope of the Court's review under the extraordinary remedy of certiorari , wherein the Court is confined solely to questions of jurisdiction whenever a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. [35] As