G.R. No. 230383 - CARLOS B. LOZADA, RICARDO L. MEDALLA, JR., LLEWELYN* A. VILLAMOR, ROWENA DL SAN GABRIEL, AND OCTAVIO F. LINA, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Supreme Court that: the said provisions of Section 16.3 of the 2009 Rules and Regulations on the Settlement of Accounts, as incorporated under COA's Circular No. 2009-006 dated September 15, 2009BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL; thereafter, a RESOLUTION be issued, commanding and directing Respondent-COMMISSION ON AUDIT and the Respondent-MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY that: in the manner of implementation of the aforementioned COA Orders of Execution be modified accordingly ; by commanding and directing the Respondents that the names of Mr. Robert Uy, Mr. Florencio Montalbo, Mr. Raymond J. Anatalio, Mr. Freddie Cano, Mr. Antonio Gana, Mr. Oscar Paras, Mr. Edgardo C. Manda, Mr. Elpidio L. Mendoza, Mr. Alfredo V. Patriciowho are no longer in service and the payee Business Royale Services be INCLUDED and BE HELD equally liable. [29] (Italics and Underscoring supplied.) Verily, the present Petition leads with a request to nullify a COA circular due to lack of constitutionality. However, a closer reading of the prayer reveals the petitioners' true intention: to assail/resist the COEs that led to the imposition of salary deductions against them. Why did petitioners not assail directly the orders of execution and/or its implementation? Petitioners acknowledge the following: (a) COA issued the COEs in question on March 13, 2015 and April 30, 2015; (b) MIAA first informed Lozada about the salary deductions on January 12, 2016; [30] and (c) MIAA started deducting from petitioners' salaries on February 15, 2016. [31] On the other hand, they filed the present petition only on March 27, 2017 . Certainly, more appropriate procedural remedies, if any, would have already prescribed given the time gap of over a year between the COEs' issuance and implementation and petitioners' attempt to resist them. That their last-ditch effort to go to court was belated and vaguely- denominated only suggest that the present petition is a mere afterthought. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED . SO ORDERED.