, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), COMMISSION PROPER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE GOVERNMENT SECTOR, CLUSTER 6, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR JOSEPH B. ANACAY, AND OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISING AUDITOR, REPRESENTED BY BELEN B. LADINES, IN HER CAPACITY AS COA SUPERVISING AUDITOR - PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND

Ruling

accordingly lifted the First ND, while affirming the Second ND, as amended by the Supplemental ND. It ruled that: The Director is correct in ruling that the donations made by PAGCOR to MVAI violated the principle provided under paragraph 2, Section 4 of PD No. 1445, that government funds or property shall be spent or used solely for public purpose. The P550,000.00 donations used for the purchase and installation of customized lighted street signs and repainting of street gutters and curbs, owned by MVAI, a private subdivision, are considered private in purpose because these privately-owned sidewalks were not yet transferred to the local government. [21] Genuino then filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration [22] ( MR ), dated May 22, 2019, of the Assailed Decision. In his MR, Genuino argued that the Donations were beyond the COA's audit jurisdiction pursuant to PD No. 1869, [23] or the "PAGCOR Charter," as these were sourced from PAGCOR's private corporate funds; that the Donations to MVAI were for a public purpose; and that there is no basis to hold him personally liable under the NDs. [24] The COA then rendered Decision No. 2021-263, [25] dated October 7, 2021, denying Genuino's MR. The COA ruled that it had audit jurisdiction over the Donations, regardless of what funds of the PAGCOR they were sourced from; that as the Donations are meant to benefit private property, then they cannot be considered public in purpose; and that as the Chairman of the Board of PAGCOR, Genuino was an approving officer and therefore liable for approving the Donations. The Issues In his Petition, Genuino reiterates the arguments he raised in his MR of the Assailed Decision. He argues that the Assailed Decision and the Assailed Resolution were rendered with grave abuse of discretion as: first , COA's audit jurisdiction does not cover the Donations; second , the Donations were valid as they were for a socio-civic and public purpose; and third , he cannot be held personally liable as he had no actual participation in the approval of the Donations. [26] The Ruling of the Court The Petition is dismissed. Genuino's arguments have been thoroughly scrutinized and been found wanting by the Court in another case also involving Genuino, and with almost identical facts. Thus, the Court here rules likewise, in solemn observance of precedent. In the recently promulgated Resolution of the Court in Genuino v. Commission on Audit ( the 2023 Genuino Resolution ), [27] the Court, speaking through Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the COA, and reversed its earlier Decision, dated June 15, 2021 ( the 2021 Genuino Decision ). The Court, in this case, relies in large part on the pronouncements in the 2023 Genuino Resolution to anchor this Decision. While the 2023 Genuino Resolution is intended to be prospective in application, in order to "not affect parties who had relied on, and acted upon, the force of former contrary views," the Court find