This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rufino O. Eslao and the Commission on Audit regarding excess payments of honoraria. The case involved a Memorandum of Agreement between Pangasinan State University and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for an evaluation project funded by the Asian Development Bank. The Commission on Audit disallowed payments claiming lower rates under an older guideline applied, while Pangasinan State University argued the project was foreign-assisted so the rates in the Memorandum of Agreement budget applied. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Pangasinan State University, finding the Commission on Audit cannot substitute its own judgment for applicable laws and regulations.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rufino O. Eslao and the Commission on Audit regarding excess payments of honoraria. The case involved a Memorandum of Agreement between Pangasinan State University and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for an evaluation project funded by the Asian Development Bank. The Commission on Audit disallowed payments claiming lower rates under an older guideline applied, while Pangasinan State University argued the project was foreign-assisted so the rates in the Memorandum of Agreement budget applied. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Pangasinan State University, finding the Commission on Audit cannot substitute its own judgment for applicable laws and regulations.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rufino O. Eslao and the Commission on Audit regarding excess payments of honoraria. The case involved a Memorandum of Agreement between Pangasinan State University and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for an evaluation project funded by the Asian Development Bank. The Commission on Audit disallowed payments claiming lower rates under an older guideline applied, while Pangasinan State University argued the project was foreign-assisted so the rates in the Memorandum of Agreement budget applied. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Pangasinan State University, finding the Commission on Audit cannot substitute its own judgment for applicable laws and regulations.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rufino O. Eslao and the Commission on Audit regarding excess payments of honoraria. The case involved a Memorandum of Agreement between Pangasinan State University and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for an evaluation project funded by the Asian Development Bank. The Commission on Audit disallowed payments claiming lower rates under an older guideline applied, while Pangasinan State University argued the project was foreign-assisted so the rates in the Memorandum of Agreement budget applied. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Pangasinan State University, finding the Commission on Audit cannot substitute its own judgment for applicable laws and regulations.
Facts : On 9 December 1988, PSU entered into a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR") for the evaluation of eleven (11) government reforestation operations in Pangasinan. The evaluation project was part of the commitment of the Asian Development Bank ("ADB") under the ADB/OECF Forestry Sector Program Loan to the Republic of the Philippines and was one among identical project agreements entered into by the DENR with sixteen (16) other state universities. On 16 January 1989, per advice of the PSU Auditor-in-Charge with respect to the payment of honoraria and per diems of PSU personnel engaged in the review and evaluation project, PSU Vice President for Research and Extension and Assistant Project Director Victorino P. Espero requested the Office of the President, PSU, to have the University's Board of Regents ("BOR") confirm the appointments or designations of involved PSU personnel including the rates of honoraria and per diems corresponding to their specific roles and functions. The BOR approved the MOA on 30 January 1989 and on 1 February 1989, PSU issued Voucher No. 8902007 representing the amount of P70, 375 for payment of honoraria to PSU personnel engaged in the project. Later, however, the approved honoraria rates were found to be somewhat higher than the rates provided for in the guidelines of National Compensation Circular ("NCC") No. 53. Accordingly, the amounts were adjusted downwards to conform to NCC No. 53. Adjustments were made by deducting amounts from subsequent disbursements of honoraria. By June 1989, NCC No. 53 was being complied with. On 6 July 1989, Bonifacio Icu, COA resident auditor at PSU, alleging that there were excess payments of honoraria, issued a "Notice of Disallowance" disallowing P64,925 from the amount of P70,37 stated in Voucher No. 8902007, mentioned earlier. The resident auditor based his action on the premise that Compensation Policy Guidelines ("CPG") No. 80-4, dated 7 August 1980, issued by the Department of Budget and Management which provided for lower rates than NCC No. 53 dated 21 June 1988, also issued by the Department of Budget and Management, was the schedule for honoraria and per diems applicable to work done under the MOA of 9 December 1988 between the PSU and the DENR.
Issue : Whether or not the evaluation project is in fact a "special project" and that there were excess of payments of honoraria.
Held : The instant evaluation project being a Foreign-Assisted Project, the PSU personnels involved in the project shall be paid according to the Budget Estimate schedule of the MOA. COA, under its constitutional mandate, is not authorized to substitute its own judgment for any applicable law or administrative regulation with the wisdom or propriety of which, however, it does not agree, at least not before such law or regulation is set aside by the authorized agency of government – i.e., the courts – as unconstitutional or illegal and void. The COA, like all other government agencies, must respect the presumption of legality and constitutionality to which statutes and administrative regulations are entitled until such statute or regulation is repealed or amended, or until set aside in appropriate case by a competent court and ultimately the Supreme Court.
CITIZEN J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, and THE NATIONAL TREASURER
