G.R. No. 198457 - FILOMENA G. DELOS SANTOS, JOSEFA A. BACALTOS, NELANIE A. ANTONI, AND MAUREEN A. BIEN, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONERS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal[s] of Dr. Filomena [G]. Delos Santos, Dr. Josefa A. Bacaltos, Ms. Nelanie A. Antoni and Ms. Maureen A. Bien [are] hereby DENIED for lack of merit. However, the appeal of Ms. Corazon Quiao, Ms. Norma Chiong, Ms. Rowena Rabillas and Ms. Riza Seismundo is hereby given due course. Likewise, Ms. Arly Capuyan who is similarly situated is excluded although she did not file her appeal. ND No. 2008-09-01 (SAT) dated September 8, 2008 involving the amount of P3,386,697.10 is hereby affirmed with the modification by excluding therein the names [of[ Ms. Corazon Quiao, Ms. Norma Chiong, Ms. Rowena Rabillas, Ms. Riza Seismundo, and Ms. Arly Capuyan as persons liable. The other persons named liable therein, i.e. , Ma. Isabel Cuenco and Mr. James R. Cuenco, TNT Health Program Directors, and Mr. Sisinio Villacin, Jr., proprietor of Dell Pharmacy, and herein appellants Delos Santos, Bacaltos, Antoni and Bien remain solidarily liable for the disallowance . [42] (Emphasis supplied) The Motion for Reconsideration [43] of the foregoing decision was further denied in Decision No. 2011-045 [44] dated August 8, 2011. Hence, the instant petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not the CoA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding petitioners solidarily liable for the disallowed amount of P3,386,697.10. The Court's Ruling At the outset, it must be emphasized that the CoA is endowed with enough latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. It is tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and ultimately the people's, property. The exercise of its general audit power is among the constitutional mechanisms that gives life to the check and balance system inherent in our form of government. [45] Corollary thereto, it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created, such as the CoA, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. It is only when the CoA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, that this Court entertains a petition questioning its rulings. There is grave abuse of discretion 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. [46] In this case, the Court finds no grave abuse of di