PELAGIO T. RICALDE, OLIVER B. BUTALID, EFREN V. LEAÑO, BOBBY G. FONDEVILLA, AND ESTELLA F. JIMENEZ, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, COMMISSIONER MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, COMMISSIONER JOSE A. FABIA, COMMISSIONER ROLAND C. PONDOC, DIRECTOR MA. CORAZON S. GOMEZ, SUPERVISING AUDITOR MANUEL A. BAES, AND AUDIT TEAM

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the appeal is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and is accordingly DISMISSED. Accordingly, the subject [NDs] on the payment of salaries to Attys. Manzano, Gascon, and Clarino for CY 2011 in the total amount of P774,189.00 is hereby affirmed. [23] On January 4, 2016, a Notice of Finality of Decision (NFD) No. OCD-2016-001(2014) [24] was issued, stating that COA NGS-Cluster 8 Decision No. 2014-011 has become final and executory, there being no petition for review filed within the reglementary period. On February 2, 2016, Decision No. 2014-011-A [25] was issued to correct the disallowed amount stated in Decision No. 2014-011 from P774,189.00 to P797,790.77 as reflected in the NDs. On even date, NFD No. OCD-2016-001(2014)-A [26] was issued for the same purpose. On March 22, 2016, Butalid, Ricalde, and Leaño filed a Petition for Review [27] before the COA Proper to question Decision No. 2014-011-A. The COA Proper gave due course to the appeal despite being belatedly filed, noting that Butalid, Ricalde, and Leaño were notified of the adverse decision only when they received the amended decision and NFD on February 18, 2016. [28] In its assailed Decision No. 2020-263 [29] dated January 31, 2020, the COA Proper ruled as follows: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Petition for Review of [Butalid, Ricalde, and Leaño,] all of the [BOI], of [COA NGS-Cluster 8] Decision No. 2014-[0]11 dated August 11, 2014, as amended by COA NGS-Cluster 8 Decision No. 2014-[0]11-A dated February 2, 2016, is hereby DENIED . Accordingly, [ND] Nos. 2012-007-101 (11) to 2012-019-101(11), all dated May 30, 2012, on the payment of salaries of three contractual lawyers for calendar year 2011 in the total amount of [P]797.790.77 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that Attys. [Gascon, Manzano, and Clarino] are excluded from liability under the NDs . [NFD] No. OCD-2016-001(2014) dated January 4, 2016, as amended by NFD No. OCD-2016-001 (2014)-A dated February 1, 2016 [ sic ], is AFFIRMED insofar as ND Nos. 2012-007-101(11) to 2012-019-101(11), all dated May 30, 2012, with respect to [Fondevilla], x x x for failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period prescribed by the rules of this Commission. As regards the other persons liable who have seasonably filed an appeal, the NFD is SET ASIDE . [30] (Emphases supplied.) Hence, this petition raises the same arguments on the inapplicability of COA Circular No. 86-255, alleging that Atty. Gascon and Atty. Manzano were hired as technical assistants and not as lawyers to represent the BOI before any judicial or quasi-judicial body. [31] As regards Atty. Clarino, the petition points out that she was not hired on a fixed retainer fee, which the Circular prohibits; and that her salary was not unreasonable, it being at par with a BOI Attorney II's salary. In any case, the petition cites the BOI's "dire need" [32] of additional technical staff to justify the engagement of the three lawyers' services an