G.R. No. 230218 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, COA - R.O. No. XII[I] Decision No. 2011-007 dated February 21, 2011 modifying ND Nos. 09-005-501-(09) to 09-019-501-(09) on the payment of various benefits to officials, employees and contractors of [Philippine Health CARAGA] is hereby APPROVED . Accordingly, the concerned [ATL] is instructed to recompute the amount of the disallowance to reflect the actual amount paid to [its] recipients net of tax[,] which shall be reflected in the COA ­ R.O. N[o]. XIII Decision No. 2011-007. A copy of said Decision shall be furnished the Commission Secretary, together with the recomputation by the ATL. [15] Philhealth CARAGA's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in the Resolution No. 2016-029 [16] dated November 17, 2016 of the COA En Banc . Hence, Philhealth CARAGA filed this instant petition for certiorari . Issues Substantially the issues for our resolution are as follows: 1) Whether or not the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the disallowance; 2) Whether or not the COA committed grave abuse of discretion as it divested the Philhealth CARAGA Board of Directors of its prerogatives to fix compensation as granted by its charters, and its grant of fiscal autonomy; and 3) Whether or not Philhealth CARAGA officers, employees and contractors received the benefits in good faith and even if the disallowance is sustained, they cannot be required to refund the said amount. Ruling of the Court The petition is partly granted. The COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the disallowance. This Court has consistently held that findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded not only respect but also finality, unless found to have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The same was aptly discussed in the case of Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit , [17] to wit: It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws that 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. [18] (Citation omitted) The COA as constitutional office and guardian of public funds is endowed with the exclusive authority to determine a