G.R. No. 216538 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, this Commission finds the instant appeal devoid of merit. Accordingly, said Notice of Disallowance No. MVLPP-2006-10 (06) is hereby AFFIRMED . [18] DBP further appealed to seek the reversal and setting aside of CGS-A Decision No. 2011-001. On December 28, 2012, the COA Commission Proper rendered the assailed Decision No. 2012-269 denying DBP's petition for review, viz .: WHEREFORE , this Commission DENIES the Petition for Review and AFFIRMS COA CGS-A Decision No. 2011-001 dated February 10, 2011 and ND No. MVLPP-2006-10 dated May 20, 2007. The list of MVLPP availees is attached herein. [19] On February 8, 2013, DBP filed its motion for reconsideration of the COA's Decision No. 2012-269. [20] A few months later, or in June 2013, Alfredo C. Antonio, Ruben O. Fruto and Cesar M. Drilon, Jr., who are the petitioners in G.R. No. 216954, were informed about Decision No. 2012-269 by a concerned employee of DBP. Being former Members of the Board of Directors of DBP thereby affected, they immediately submitted a letter-request for reconsideration on June 6, 2013 taking issue against the decision for lack of notice to them, and claiming good faith on the subject matter thereof, among others. [21] On December 4, 2014, the COA Commission Proper En Banc issued the assailed Resolution denying DBP's motion for reconsideration and the supplemental motions for reconsideration of the petitioners in G.R. No. 216954 for lack of merit. [22] Hence, the petitioners have all come to the Court via separate petitions under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court. On May 19, 2015, the Office of the Solicitor General, as counsel of the COA, moved to consolidate the petitions in G.R. No. 216538 and G.R. No. 216954. [23] Accordingly, on July 7, 2015, this Court ordered the consolidation of G.R. No. 216538 and G.R. No. 216954. [24] Issues DBP raises the following issues in G.R. No. 216538, namely: A. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT CITED NO LEGAL OR FACTUAL BASIS IN HOLDING THAT THE DBP-MVLPP VIOLATED ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RR-MVLPP. ON THE CONTRARY, DBP HAS SHOWN THAT ITS MVLPP IS CONSISTENT AND COMPLIES WITH THE RR-MVLPP. B. THE COA, THROUGH COUNTLESS PAST SUPERVISING AUDITORS AND CLUSTER DIRECTORS, HAD ALREADY PASSED IN AUDIT THE BENEFITS GRANTED AND EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE BANK UNDER THE DBP MVLPP FROM 1992 UP TO 2007, OR FIFTEEN LONG YEARS. IT WOULD BE UNJUST, UNFAIR AND INEQUITABLE FOR COA TO BELATEDLY RECALL THESE FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF THE 1992-1996 DBP-MVLPP DISBURSEMENTS WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF DISALLOWANCE ONLY IN 2007 . C. COA VIOLATED THE LAW WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE DBP CHARTER TO THE DBP BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO FORMULATE POLICIES NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT EFFECTIVELY THE OPERATIONS OF THE BANK AND TO FIX THE COMPENSATION OF ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. THE ADOPTION AND CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DBP MVLPP IS PART OF THE COMPENSATION SET BY THE DBP BOARD FOR THE BENEFIT