G.R. No. 218052 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS MESSRS. MARGARITO B. TEVES, RONALDO V. PUNO, JOSE L. ATIENZA, AUGUSTO B. SANTOS, PETER B. FAVILA, ARTHUR C. YAP, ROLANDO G. ANDAYA, FROILAN A. TAMPINCO, AND VARIOUS PAYEES OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , foregoing premises considered, the herein Appeal is hereby DENIED . Accordingly, [ND] No. NPC 12-[007] (09,10) dated October 15, 2012 in the total amount of [P]327,272,424.91 is hereby AFFIRMED . [26] (Emphasis in the original.) On March 14, 2014, petitioners received the COA CGS Decision, [27] and on March 26, 2014, they filed their Petition for Review [28] before the COA Proper, reiterating the same arguments. COA Proper Ruling In its Decision No. 2015-108 [29] dated April 6, 2015, the COA Proper found that the Petition for Review was filed beyond the reglementary period of six months or 180 days in violation of Section 48 [30] of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1445 or the "Government Auditing Code of the Philippines" and Section 3, [31] Rule VII of the COA Revised Rules of Procedure, thus: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the [P]etition for [R]eview is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time. Accordingly, [COA CGS Cluster 3 Public Utilities] Decision No. 2014-03 dated February 28, 2014, sustaining [ND] No. NPC 12-007 (09,10) dated October 15, 2012, on the payment of [PIB] to the officials and employees of [NPC NMA-SPUG/Watershed]; and OMA, Head Office, Engineering, for the year 2009, in the total amount of [P]327,272,424.91, is final and executory. [32] (Emphasis in the original.) Hence, this Petition. Without filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioners come directly to this Court, and impute grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA in dismissing their appeal for being filed out of time. Petitioners claim that the period to file an appeal has not yet commenced because they were not individually served with the ND. The constructive service to Tampinco was improper since the ND imposes personal liability on each petitioner. Insisting that up to present, "all of [them] are not yet aware of the x x x ND, and xxx that [they] were not given any opportunity at all to be heard," [33] petitioners implore this Court to exercise liberality and resolve the case on its merits. Petitioners then reiterate that the PIB did not violate AO No. 103 as its grant was authorized by the President through MO No. 198 and/or through the NPC Board who were his alter egos. In addition, petitioners claim that they all acted in good faith in disbursing and receiving the PIB. In its Comment, [34] the COA counters that petitioners' failure to file their Petition for Review within the reglementary period rendered Decision No. 2014-03 final and immutable. The COA asserts that constructive service of the ND was validly resorted to in accordance with Section 12.1 [35] of COA Circular No. 2009-006 [36] dated September 15, 2009. On the merits, the COA maintains the propriety of the disallowance due to non-compliance with the requirements under MO No. 198, and the extravagance of the grant considering the net loss incurred by NPC during the year when the PIB was granted. Finally, the COA insists that petitioners are liable to settle the disallowe