G.R. No. 152688 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for reversal of CAO II Decision dated November 9, 2000 cannot be given due course. Accordingly, the disallowance in question amounting to P1,094,400.00 is hereby affirmed. The Auditor, PITC, is hereby directed to enforce and monitor the settlement of the disallowance and to advise the Commission of the proper implementation of this decision. [8] Hence, PITC filed the instant petition for certiorari , contending that - I RESPONDENT COA COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN DECIDING A QUESTION OF LAW IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE COA-CAO II's 1'st INDORSEMENT DISALLOWING THE GRANT OF SFI FOR CY 1998 TO PITC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC APPROVAL FROM THE DBM PURSUANT TO SEC. 12 OF R.A. NO. 6758 (SALARY STANDARDIZATION LAW) DESPITE THE INEFFECTIVENESS AND UNENFORCEABILITY OF DBM-CCC NO. 10 WHICH COMPRISED THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS (IRR) OF R.A. 6758. II RESPONDENT COA COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN DECIDING A QUESTION OF LAW IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE COA-CAO II's 1'st INDORSEMENT DISALLOWING THE GRANT OF SFI FOR CY 1998 TO PITC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES WHILE OTHER RESIDENT AUDITORS OF THE DTI AND OF ITS ATTACHED BUREAUS, AGENCIES AND GOCCs ALLOWED THE SAME IN AUDIT, IN CLEAR VIOLATON OF THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS GUARANTEED UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. [9] On August 29, 2002, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it cannot represent and maintain a stand consistent with COA because in November 1998, the officials and employees of the OSG likewise received the same Staple Food Incentive in the amount of P7,200.00 each. The OSG prayed that it be excused from filing a comment and that the COA be given a new period within which to file its comment. [10] On September 17, 2002, the Court issued a Resolution granting the prayer of the OSG. [11] We first address the failure of the PITC to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision. As a general rule, a petition for certiorari before a higher court will not prosper unless the inferior court has been given, through a motion for reconsideration, a chance to correct the errors imputed to it. This rule, though, has certain exceptions: (1) when the issue raised is purely of law, (2) when public interest is involved, or (3) in case of urgency. As a fourth exception, it was also held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration before availment of the remedy of certiorari is not a condition sine qua non , when the questions raised are the same as those that have already been squarely argued and exhaustively passed upon by the lower court. [12] In the case at bar, a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with not only because the issue presented is purely of law, but also because the question raised has already been extensively discussed in the decisions of the Director, Corporate Audit