G.R. No. 252198 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Commission on Audit National Government Sector-Cluster 2 Decision No. 2013-004 dated April 1, 2013 is hereby APPROVED . Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance No. 11-003-101-(10) dated December 10, 2011, on the remittance of monthly share contribution to the Provident Fund of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) officials and employees in the amount of P19,723,444.66, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION . The SEC personnel need not refund the disallowed amounts remitted to Provident Fund. However, the approving/certifying/authorizing SEC officers are solidarily liable for the total amount of disallowance. [20] It excused the SEC employees from refunding the amount they each received from the counterpart contribution of the SEC to the provident fund; but held the approving, certifying and authorizing officers solidarily liable for the total disallowance. The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration [21] of the SEC was denied in the assailed Resolution [22] dated January 29, 2020. The Present Petition The SEC now seeks affirmative relief from the Court via Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. It charges the COA with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it disallowed the sum of P19,723,444.66 based on its alleged erroneous reasoning that the use of this retained income should have been restricted to the augmentation of MOOE and CO requirements of the agency. The SEC argues that in drawing this conclusion, the COA overlooked the fact that the amount in question was part of its retained income under Section 75 of the SRC. As such, it was an off-budget fund, did not need appropriation, and was not included within the coverage of the GAA 2010. Section 75 of the SRC grants the SEC exclusive discretion on how it should be used. Also, the GAA 2010, as a general law, should be read together with the SRC, a special law. Both should be interpreted in such a way that there is no conflict in their respective provisions. Repeals by implication are not favored. In case of conflict though, Section 75 of the SRC should prevail since it is the special law on the subject. [23] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), through Solicitor General Jose Calida, Assistant Solicitor General Gilbert Medrano, and Associate Solicitor Paolo Mikael Quilala, posits that the COA is imbued with a wide latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. The authority of the SEC under Section 75 of SRC is not absolute for the use of its retained earnings is still subject to auditing requirements, standards, and procedures under existing laws. The SEC violated Special Provision No. 1 for the SEC in GAA 2010, Section 37 of PD 1177, and Sections 34 and 25, Chapter V, Book VI of EO 292. The SEC officials did not act in good faith when they approved the sum of P19,723,444.66 as its contribution to the provident fund because they w