G.R. No. 199439 - CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MAYOR, HON. DARLENE MAGNOLIA R. ANTONINO-CUSTODIO, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and COA-LSS Opinion No. 2010-021 dated March 25, 2010 of the OGC, this Commission is hereby AFFIRMED . Accordingly, the ATL of General Santos City is hereby directed to issue a Notice of Disallowance on the illegal disbursements made under the Gen[S]san SERVES. [23] Respondent Commission on Audit agreed that Ordinance No. 08, series of 2009, partakes of the nature of a supplementary retirement benefit plan proscribed by Section 28, paragraph (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186 as amended. It also cited Conte v. Commission on Audit [24] and Laraño v. Commission on Audit. [25] In its opinion, respondent Commission on Audit observed that GenSan SERVES was not based on a law passed by Congress but on ordinances and resolutions passed and approved by the Sangguniang Panlungsod and Executive Orders by the city mayor. [26] Moreover, nowhere in Section 76 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, does it provide a specific power for local government units to establish an early retirement program. Mayor Acharon, Jr. submitted that other local government units such as Cebu in 2005 and 2008 have adopted their own early retirement programs. The resolutions of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu invoked Republic Act No. 6683 dated December 2, 1988, which provided for early retirement and voluntary separation. The questioned decision mentioned that respondent Commission on Audit would look into this program supposedly adopted by Cebu. [27] Assuming Cebus invocation of Republic Act No. 6683 was proper, respondent Commission on Audit explained that this has already been amended by Republic Act No. 8291, otherwise known as the GSIS Act of 1997. Moreover, Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6683 [28] provides for limited application. [29] The present petition raises this sole issue: WHETHER RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON AUDIT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT CONSIDERED ORDINANCE NO. 08, SERIES OF 2009, IN THE NATURE OF AN EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM REQUIRING A LAW AUTHORIZING IT FOR ITS VALIDITY I This court has consistently held that findings of administrative agencies are generally respected, unless found to have been tainted with unfairness that amounted to grave abuse of discretion: 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 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 petiti