FLORDELIS B. MENZON, JOSE E. CLARIN, RENGIE O. VILLABLANCA, RONSARD P. GRANALI, RAQUEL R. POMIDA, RIZALITO T. LORECHE, MARK ANTHONY G. FARAON AND EMILY B. PRETENCIO, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, COMMISSION PROPER, VIRGINIA C. TABAO, AUDIT TEAM LEADER, AND ALICIA M. MALQUISTO, SUPERVISING AUDITOR.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal has to be as it is hereby DENIED . The requests for exclusion from liability of appellants Pomida, Pretencio, Faraon and Loreche are likewise denied . Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance ND Nos. 2012-01 to 03(08); 2012-05 to 08(08); 2012-10 to 13(08); 2012-15 to 21(08); 2012-04(07); 2012-09(07) and 2012-14(09) all dated February 29, 2012 in the total amount of Pl3,791,000.00 are hereby AFFIRMED . [15] (Emphasis in the original) Undeterred, petitioners filed their consolidated petitions for review [16] with the COA Proper. The other officers and employees named liable in the NDs no longer joined them. Albeit the belated filing, the COA Proper took cognizance of the case in the interest of substantial justice. The COA Ruling On January 26, 2018, the COA Proper rendered the assailed Decision No. 2018-126, [17] the decretal portion of which states: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the consolidated Petitions for Review of Ms. Raquel R. Pomida, et al. (CPCN 2016-0596), and Ms. Flordelis B. Menzon, et al. (CPCN 2016-0647), all of Home Mutual Development Fund Regional Office No. VIII, Tacloban City, of Commission on Audit Regional Office No. VIII Decision No. 2016-036 dated June 6, 2016 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly[,] Notice of Disallowance Nos. 2012-01 to 03(08); 2012-05 to 08(08); 2012-10 to 13(08); 2012-15 to 21(08); 2012-04(07); 2012-09(07) and 2012-14(09) all dated February 29, 2012, on the release of loan take-outs to Mr. Ray F. Zialcita, developer of Villa Perla Subdivision, Maasin City, Southern Leyte, in the total amount of P13,791,000.00, are hereby AFFIRMED . [18] (Emphasis in the original) The COA Proper affirmed the findings of the COA Region VIII. It reiterated that the failure of petitioners to detect the obvious irregularities before the release of the loan take-outs and their failure to conduct post take­out inspection of accounts and post-validation of borrowers were primarily the reasons why they were held liable for the disallowances. It emphasized that petitioners, as public officers who participated in the release of the loans, should have exercised the required diligence in the course of its processing, review, and approval to ensure that all documents submitted were valid to protect the interest of the government. [19] Finally, the COA Proper expounded on the ruling of the COA Region VIII not to exclude petitioners Pomida, Pretencio, Faraon and Loreche from liability. It stated that "[t]he essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of" and that the same had been afforded to them when they were allowed to file their Joint Memorandum of Appeal after receipt of the NDs. [20] Hence, this petition raising the following issues for our consideration: A. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON AUDIT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUS