G.R. No. 233308 - DELILAH J. ABLONG, CAROLINA M. SANTOS, ROGELIO B. OLIVA, JOCELYN D. JUANON, ETHELRAIDA V. TUMACOLE, ERLINA V. FLORES, JOSE RENE A. CEPE, DANTE A. CAPISTRANO, MARIANO R. FLORES, JR., GEORGE N. VALENCIA, BERNADETTE Y. ARAULA, FELISA P. TRAYVILLA, GILBERT NICANOR ATILLO,* ESTRELLA M.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review of the letter of the Regional Director, COA Regional Office No. VII, filed by Ms. Delilah J. Ablong, et al., all of the Negros Oriental State University (NORSU), Dumaguete City, is hereby DISMISSED for not being a proper remedy under the COA rules,(sic) and in view of the final and executory nature of the decision being appealed from. Accordingly, Commission on Audit Order of Execution dated November 23, 2011 for Notice of Disallowance Nos. 2011-001-164(2008) to 2011-017-164(2010), on the grant of economic relief allowance to NORSU employees for calendar years 2008 to 2010, in the total amount of P20,237,850.00, shall be enforced. [11] The petitioners moved for, but failed to obtain, a reconsideration. [12] Undaunted, they filed the instant Petition for Certiorari . The Issue THE COMMISSION PROPER COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, WHEN IT UPHELD THE NOTICES OF FINALITY OF DECISION (NFDS) AND THE COA ORDERS OF EXECUTION (COES) DESPITE: (1) LACK OF ACTUAL SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF DISALLOWANCES TO PETITIONERS; AND (2) GOOD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONERS IN RECEIVING THE ECONOMIC RELIEF ALLOWANCE. [13] In support of their claim of grave abuse, the petitioners assert two arguments: denial of due process and good faith. They argue that they were denied due process in that they were not informed by NORSU's Acting Chief Accountant that NDs were issued on the ERA. According to them, the request of then NORSU President Dr. Henry A. Sojor that copies of the NDs be furnished to the individuals determined to be liable was even denied by the Supervising Auditor. They, thus, insist that they should not be faulted for failing to timely appeal the NDs as they were, in the first place, unaware of the same. As for the claim of good faith, they contend that, even if the NDs were sustained, they should not be held accountable for the disallowed amounts because they were not part of the decision-making process to grant the ERA and they received it on the assumption that NORSU Board of Regents' grant of the same was in accord with law and they have, in the first place, no authority to review and pass upon the resolutions of the said Board. For its part, COA counters that the Audit Team is not required to furnish copies of the NDs to the petitioners considering that, in instances where there are several payees, service to the accountant constitutes service to all payees listed in the payroll under Section 12.1 of COA Circular No. 2009-006. Thus, service of the NDs and the letter-transmittal (which even contained a reminder to the Accountant that the service of the NDs to her constitutes service to all payees listed in the payroll), to NORSU Acting Chief Accountant Alba was sufficient. Thus, it insists that the petitioners were not denied of due process. As for the petitioners' claim of good faith, COA asseverates that, even if the petitioners were not involved in