G.R. No. 194530 - THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY UNDERSECRE­ TARY RAFAEL E. SEGUIS, FRANKLIN M. EBDALIN, MA. CORAZON YAP-BAHJIN, EVA G. BETITA, JOCELYN BATOON-GAR­CIA, AND LEO HERRERA-LIM, FOR THEMSELVES AND IN BEHALF OF OTHER DFA PERSONNEL WITH WHOM THEY SHARE A COMMON AND GENERA

Ruling

Accordingly, when respondent disallowed petitioner's grant of certain allowances in its exercise of said power, it effectively and directly challenged petitioner's authority to grant the same. Thus, petitioner must be granted the opportunity to justify its issuances by presenting the basis on which they were made. As petitioner pointed out, whatever benefit received by the personnel as a consequence of PHIC's exercise of its alleged authority is merely incidental to the main issue, which is the validity of PHIC's grant of allowances and benefits. In fact, in light of numerous disallowances being made by the COA, it is rather typical for a government entity to come before the Court and challenge the COA's decision invalidating such entity's disbursement of funds. The non- participation of the particular employees who actually received the disallowed benefits does not prevent the Court from determining the issue of whether the COA gravely abused its discretion in declaring the entity's issuance as illegal, x x x [49] All told, the assailed Resolution does not violate a person's right to due process, and correlatively, the Constitutional mandate that free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. Save for truly indigent litigants, the Constitution does not provide that judicial access must be free at all times or that payment of judicial costs or legal fees as a requirement is an absolute anathema. Thus, provisions in the Rules of Court are in place to address a litigant's indigency and there is no reason why these cannot apply suppletorily in the proceedings before the COA. [50] WHEREFORE , the Petition is DISMISSED . The constitutionality of Commission on Audit Resolution No. 2008-005 dated February 15, 2008 is UPHELD . The Commission on Audit Decision No. 2009-089 dated September 22, 2009 and Decision No. 2010-090 dated October 21, 2010 are AFFIRMED . SO ORDERED.