EN BANC
G.R. No. 203072, October 18, 2016
DEVELOPMENT ACADEMY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO TAN, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., COMMISSIONER HEIDI L. MENDOZA, AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Under Republic Act No. 6758, otherwise known as the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, "all allowances are deemed included in the standardized salary."1 However, certain specified allowances are permitted to be given in addition to standardized salaries "due to the unique nature of the office and of the work performed by the employee."2 Without a showing of any such uniqueness, additional financial awards cannot be sanctioned and the Commission on Audit would be right to have them disallowed. Still, even in the event of a disallowance, the approving officers and recipients incur no liability to refund for as long as they acted in good faith.
This resolves a Petition for Certiorari3 praying that the assailed Decision No. 2012-1194 dated July 17, 2012 filed by respondent Commission on Audit be set aside and that an order be issued lifting Notice of Disallowance No. DAP-06-001-(04)5 dated June 27, 2006.
Notice of Disallowance No. DAP-06-001-(04) disallowed the amount of P4,862,845.71 representing petitioner Development Academy of the Philippines' payment of Financial Performance Award to its employees "for want of legal basis"6 and for several deficiencies.
The Decision No. 2012-119 of the Commission on Audit affirmed Notice of Disallowance No. DAP-06-001-(04)7
In calendar year 2002, the Development Academy of the Philippines obligated P3,613,998.72 for the grant of Financial Performance Award to its officers and employees.8
Though the award was obligated in 2002, it was only in 2004 that implementing rules for its grant was issued: DAP Memorandum Circular No. MC-2004-003,9 dated April 1, 2004; and its addendum, DAP Memorandum Circular No. MC-2004-003A10 dated December 21, 2004. With these implementing rules in place, the release and grant of the Financial Performance Award, inclusive of the so-called "MANCOM Fee" and "Star Award," followed.
DAP Memorandum Circular No. MC-2004-003 stipulated that the following were entitled to the award, which was to be released in two (2) tranches:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
chanrobleslaw
- All regular employees (on board and/or separated as of release of the 1st tranche) who have rendered full-time service for at least six months in 2002; and,
- [Letter of Invitation]-based. staff who have rendered service of at least a total of six months in 2002, and who are currently engaged as of date of release.11
chanrobleslaw
(1) That an excess of P1,277,976.65 was paid, relative to the amount obligated in calendar year 2002 (i.e., P3,613,998.72), "which is eight (8%) percent of the annual basic salaries of employees;"14 and that this excess amount was sourced from the 10% service charges paid by the Development Academy of the Philippines' clients, which service charges must — in accordance with the DAP Service Charge Scheme - be distributed only to employees in the DAP Conference Center, Tagaytay, as well as to some employees based in Pasig City;15 (2) That the payment made in 2004 included some employees not included in the payroll, which was attached to the obligation made in calendar year 2002, and that there was no document supporting these additional employees' entitlement to the award;16 (3) That there was no computation sheet for the award to each employee, which should have been "attached to the vouchers to facilitate validation of the correctness of the amount paid";17 (4) That there was no legal basis for the payment and release of the MANCOM Fee and Star Award, and that there were also no computation sheets attached to the vouchers prepared for these;18 (5) That the award was made without the approval and/or confirmation of the Development Academy of the Philippines' Board of Trustees and Executive Committee, considering that its Charter "specifically provides that . . . the President of the Academy is tasked to submit for consideration of the Board of Trustees and the Executive Committee the policies and measures which he believes to be necessary to carry out the purpose of the Academy";19 (6) That Letter of Invitation-based staff were not entitled to the Financial Performance Award;20 and (7) That in calendar year 2004, another obligation for the award was made in the amount of P2,335,664.00.21
chanrobleslaw
(1) Lack of approval of the Development Academy of the Philippines' Board of Trustees and Executive Committee; (2) Lack of a Request for Obligation Allotments for the initial amount obligated (i.e., P3,613.998.72); (3) Lack of a clear-cut policy on the award computations made for each employee; (4) The amount paid exceeded the amount obligated in calendar year 2002 by P1,248,846.99; (5) That this excess amount was taken from the service charges paid by clients of the Development Academy of the Philippines, intended to be distributed to DAP Conference Center Tagaytay employees and DAP Pasig staff; (6) That consultants serving under letters of invitation were given the award despite not being entitled to it; (7) That no approval from the Civil Service Commission was obtained for the Development Academy of the Philippines' Program on Awards and Incentives for Service Excellence (PRAISE); and (8) That there were no documents to support or validate the entitlement of additional employees who were not listed on the payroll attached to the obligation made in calendar year 2002.24
chanrobleslaw
(a) Eduardo T. Gonzales, DAP President; (b) Segundo E. Romero, Jr., DAP Executive Vice President; (c) Lilian L. De Guzman, DAP Finance Department Officer-in-Charge; (d) Jocelyn Y. Ybañez, DAP Finance Department Supervisor; (e) Judilyn L. Aguinaldo, Payroll Officer; (f) Jocelyn Y. Denaco, DAP Treasury Office Supervisor; (g) Carolyn L. Rivera, DAP Human Resource Management and Development Office Officer-in-Charge; (h) Ramonesa R. Ricardo, DAP Human Resource Management and Development Office Director; (i) Angela R. Manikan, DAP Finance Department Director (j) Leonida D. Apolinario, Cash Disbursing Officer; (k) Danilo Filarca; (l) Paraluman S. Landicho, Cashier; and (m) All officers and employees who received the Financial Performance Award.
chanrobleslaw
(1) The Board of Trustees noted/confirmed the payment of the Financial Performance Award as indicated by the minutes of its May 12, 2005 meeting.32 (2) There was no Request for Obligation Allotments because the Development Academy of the Philippines is a government- owned and controlled corporation with its own funds and system of obligating expenditures.33 (3) It had a clear-cut policy on the Financial Performance Award computations as embodied in DAP Memorandum Circular No. MC-2004-003 dated April 1, 2004, and its addendum, DAP Memorandum Circular No. MC-2004-003A dated December 21,2004.34 (4) Additional employees were included after validation from the total list of personnel actually working in it; hence, the increase relative to the amount obligated in calendar year 2002.35 (5) Its management had the prerogative to utilize amounts collected from service charges. This position was borne by Opinion No. 215, series of 2003, of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel,36 which explained that restrictions imposed by the Labor Code on the distribution of proceeds of service charges to employees applies only to the private sector, and not to a government corporation such as the Development Academy of the Philippines.37 (6) Social justice and equity dictated that consultants whose services were engaged through letters of invitation be also given the Financial Performance Award.38 (7) As evidenced in Civil Service Commission Director Velda C. Cornelio's June 6, 2006 letter,39 the Civil Service Commission approved the Development Academy of the Philippines' Employee Suggestions and Incentive Award System, which encompasses the Financial Performance Award.40 (8) The payroll attached to the original obligation made in calendar year 2002 was based on personnel estimates at the start of the year. This was revised to reflect the personnel who actually served in 2002, as could be validated in the "Employees Master List."41 It added that this master list indicated the corresponding criteria for the award.42
[Section 9] lists down the factors that should guide the Department of Budget and Management in preparing the index of occupational services, to wit:cralawlawlibraryPrecisely for the purpose of standardization, "the general rule is that all allowances are deemed included in the standardized salary."59 However, Republic Act No. 6758's standardized salary rates and guidelines in Section 9 "do not take into consideration the peculiar characteristics of each government office where performance of the same work may entail different necessary expenses for the employee."60 By way of examples, marine officers and crew stationed in government vessels, as well as foreign service officers stationed abroad incur certain expenses by the mere fact of their stations. Avoiding these expenses would be tantamount to preventing the performance of their functions. Considering the value of these expenses as already included in the concerned personnel's salary would mean that they would then have to exhaust their personal funds, just so they could perform their official functions.61
- the education and excellence required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position;
- the nature and complexity of the work to be performed;
- the kind of supervision received;
- mental and/or physical strain required in the completion of the work;
- nature and extent of internal and external relationships;
- kind of supervision exercised;
- decision-making responsibility;
- responsibility for accuracy of records and reports;
- accountability for funds, properties, and equipment; and
- hardship, hazard, and personal risk Involved in the job.58
Section 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. - All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the [Department of Budget and Management], shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.chanrobleslaw
Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary of said official or employee and shall be paid by the National Government.
The Court has had the occasion to interpret Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 6758. In National Tobacco Administration v. Commission on Audit, we held that under the first sentence of Section 12, the benefits excluded from the standardized salary rates are the "allowances" or those which are usually granted to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions. These are the RATA, clothing and laundry allowance, subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel, hazard pay, and others, as enumerated in the first sentence of Section 12. We further ruled that the phrase "and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM" is a catch-all proviso for benefits in the nature of allowances similar to those enumerated. In Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit, we explained that if these allowances were consolidated with the standardized salary rates, then government officials or employees would be compelled to spend their personal funds in attending to their duties.62 (Citations omitted)chanrobleslaw
SECTION 33. Employee Suggestions and Incentive Award System. — There shall be established a government-wide employee suggestions and incentive awards system which shall be administered under such rules, regulations, and standards as may be promulgated by the Commission.chanrobleslaw
In accordance with rules, regulations, and standards promulgated by the Commission, the President or the head of each department or agency is authorized to incur whatever necessary expenses involved in the honorary recognition of subordinate officers and employees of the government who by their suggestions, inventions, superior accomplishments, and other personal efforts contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of government operations, or who perform such other extraordinary acts or services in the public interest in connection with, or in relation to, their official employment.
Sec. 33 of P.D. No. 807 or the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines does not exempt the Food Basket Allowance from the general rule. Sec. 33 states:cralawlawlibrarychanrobleslaw
. . . .
We are not convinced that the Food Basket Allowance falls under the incentive award system contemplated above. The decree speaks of suggestions, inventions, superior accomplishments, and other personal efforts contributed by an employee to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of government operations, or other extraordinary acts or services performed by an employee in the public interest in connection with, or in relation to, his official employment. In the instant case, the Food Basket Allowance was granted to all BFAR employees, without distinction. It was not granted due to any extraordinary contribution or exceptional accomplishment by an employee. The Food Basket Allowance was primarily an economic monetary assistance to the employees.70 (Emphasis supplied)
the honorary recognition of subordinate officers and employees of the government who by their suggestions, inventions, superior accomplishments, and other personal efforts contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of government operations, or who perform such other extraordinary acts or services in the public interest in connection with, or in relation to, their official employment. (Emphasis supplied)chanrobleslaw
SECTION 2. The System is designed to encourage creativity, innovativeness, efficiency, integrity and productivity in the public service by recognizing and rewarding officials and employees, individually or in groups, for their suggestions, inventions, superior accomplishments, and other personal efforts which contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement in government operations, or for other extraordinary acts or services in the public interest. (Emphasis supplied)chanrobleslaw
Section 103. General liability for unlawful expenditures. Expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor.71 (Emphasis supplied)chanrobleslaw
19.1. The liability of public officers and other persons for audit disallowances shall be determined on the basis of: (a) the nature of the disallowance; (b) the duties, responsibilities or obligations of the officers/persons concerned; (c) the extent of their participation or involvement in the disallowed transaction; and (d) the amount of losses or damages suffered by the government thereby. The following are illustrative examples:cralawlawlibrarychanrobleslaw
....19.1.3. Public officers who approve or authorize transactions involving the expenditure of government funds and uses of government properties shall be liable for all losses arising out of their negligence or failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family.
Section 103 of P.D. 1445 declares that expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor. The public official's personal liability arises only if the expenditure of government funds was made in violation of law. In this case, petitioner's act of entering into a contract on behalf of the local government unit without the requisite authority therefor was in violation of the Local Government Code. While petitioner may have relied on the opinion of the City Legal Officer, such reliance only serves to buttress his good faith. It does not, however, exculpate him from his personal liability under P.D. 1445.73chanrobleslaw
In common usage, the term "good faith" is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious."79chanrobleslaw
Nevertheless, our pronouncement in Blaquera v. Alcala supports petitioners' position on the. refund of the benefits they received. In Blaquera, the officials and employees of several government departments and agencies were paid incentive benefits which the COA disallowed on the ground that Administrative Order No. 29 dated 19 January 1993 prohibited payment of these benefits. While the Court sustained the COA on the disallowance, it nevertheless declared that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarychanrobleslawConsidering, however, that all the parties here acted in good faith, we cannot countenance the refund of subject incentive benefits for the year 1992, which amounts the petitioners have already received. Indeed, no indicia of bad faith can be detected under the attendant facts and circumstances. The . officials and chiefs of offices concerned disbursed such incentive benefits in the honest belief that the amounts given were due to the recipients and the latter accepted the same, with gratitude, confident that they richly deserve such benefits.chanrobleslaw
This ruling in Blaquera applies to the instant case. Petitioners here received the additional allowances and bonuses in good faith under the honest belief that LWUA Board Resolution No. 313 authorized such payment. At the time petitioners received the additional allowances and bonuses, the Court had not yet decided Baybay Water District. Petitioners had no knowledge that such payment was without legal basis. Thus, being in good faith, petitioners need not refund the allowances and bonuses they received but disallowed by the COA.81
Endnotes:
1 Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015 13 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc], citing Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 12.
2 Id. at 18.
3 Rollo, pp. 3-21. The Petition was filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
4 Id. at 22-29. The Decision was signed by (now respondents) Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan, Commissioner Juanito G. Espino, Jr., and Commissioner Heidi L. Mendoza
5 Id. at 31-39. The Order was signed by Director Janet D. Nacion.
6 Id. at 31.
7 Id. at 29.
8 Id. at 132.
9 Id. at 128-129.
10 Id. at 130.
11 Id. at 129.
12 Id. at 130.
13 Id. at 132-134.
14 Id. at 132.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 133.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 31-39.
23 Id. at 31.
24 Id. at 31-32.
25 Id. at 40-48.
26 Id. at 247.
27 Pres. Decree No. 807, sec. 33 provides:cralawlawlibrarySECTION 33. Employee Suggestions and Incentive Award System. — There shall be established a government-wide employee suggestions and incentive awards system which shall be administered under such rules, regulations, and standards as may be promulgated by the Commission. In accordance with rules, regulations, and standards promulgated by the Commission, the President or the head of each department or agency is authorized to incur whatever necessary expenses involved in the honorary recognition of subordinate officers and employees of the government who by their suggestions, inventions, superior accomplishments, and other personal efforts contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of government operations, or who perform such other extraordinary acts or services in the public interest in connection with, or in relation to, their official employment.
28 Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws (1995), RULE X, sec. 5 provides;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrarySECTION 5. Awards under the System shall consist of honor awards and incentive awards. The head of department or agency may, however, upon recommendation of the Department or Agency Suggestions and Incentive Award Committee created in accordance with Section 11 hereof, consider an employee for both incentive and honor awards.
29 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 6713, RULE V, sec. 2 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 2. The following criteria shall be considered in the conferment of awards:cralawlawlibrarychanrobleslaw
(a) Years of service;
(b) Quality and consistency of performance;
(c) Obscurity of the position;
(d) Level of salary;
(e) Unique and exemplary quality of achievement;
(f) Risk or temptation inherent in the work; and
(g) Any similar circumstances or considerations in favor of the particular awardee.
30 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 6713, RULE V, sec. 3 provides:cralawlawlibrarySECTION 3. Incentives and rewards to government officials and employees of the year may take the form of any of the following, as may be determined by the Committee on Awards established under the Code:
(a) Bonuses; or (b) Citations; or (c) Directorships in government-owned or controlled corporations; or (d) Local and foreign scholarships grants; or (e) Paid vacations; and (f) Automatic promotion to the next higher position suitable to his qualifications and with commensurate salary; provided, that if there is no next higher position or it is not vacant, said position shall be included in the next budget of the office; except when the creation of a new position will result in distortion in the organizational structure of the department, office or agency. Where there is no next higher position immediately available, a salary increase equivalent to the next higher position shall be given and incorporated in the base pay. When a new position is created, that which is vacated shall be deemed abolished.The grants of awards shall be governed by the merit and fitness principle.
31 The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees.
32 Rollo, p. 44.
33 Id. at 45.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 93-95.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 46.
39 Id. at 97.
40 Id. at 46-47.
41 Id. at 99-114.
42 Id. at 47.
43 Id. at 22-29.
44 Id. at 28.
45 Id. at 3-9.
46 Id. at 247.
47 Id. at 254.
48 Id.
49 Id. at 97.
50 Id. at 249.
51 Id. at 255.
52 Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 12 provides:.SECTION 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. — All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.chanrobleslaw
Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary of said official or employee and shall be paid by the National Government.
53 Id. at 240-241.
54 584 Phil. 132 (2008) [Per CJ. Puno, En Banc].
55 Id. at 143.
56 Rollo, p. 241, Respondents' Memorandum.
57 Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Employees Union v. Commission on Audit, 584 Phil. 132, 138 (2008) [Per CJ. Puno, En Banc], citing Ambros v. Commission on Audit, 501 Phil. 255, 279 (2005) [Per J. Callero, Sr., En Banc].
58 Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015 18 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc], citing Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 9.
59 Id. at 13.
60 Id. at 18.
61 See Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 100773, October 16, 1992, 214 SCRA 653, 659 [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., En Banc].
62Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Employees Union v. Commission on Audit, 584 Phil 132, 139-140 (2008) [Per C.J. Puno, En Banc].
63Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015 18 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
64Rollo, p. 254, Petitioner's Memorandum.
65 Exec. Order No. 292, Book V, sec. 35 provides:cralawlawlibrary
SECTION 35. Employee Suggestions and Incentive Award System. — There shall be established a government-wide employee suggestions and incentive awards system which shall be administered under such rules, regulations, and standards as may be promulgated by the Commission.
In accordance with rules, regulations, and standards promulgated by the Commission, the President or the head of each department or agency is authorized to incur whatever necessary expenses involved in the honorary recognition of subordinate officers and employees of the government who by their suggestions, inventions, superior accomplishments, and other personal efforts contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement of government operations, or who perform such other extraordinary acts or services in the public interest in connection with, or in relation to, their official employment.
66 Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, Rule X, sec. 1 provides:cralawlawlibrary
SECTION 1. Each department or agency of government, whether national or local, including bureaus and agencies, state colleges and universities; and government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, shall establish its own Department or Agency Employee Suggestions and Incentives Award System in accordance with these Rules and shall 'Submit the same to the Commission for approval.
67Rollo, p. 254, Petitioner's Memorandum.
68 Id.
69Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Employees Union v.Commission on Audit 584 Phil 132, 134-135 (2008) [Per C.J. Puno, En Banc].
70 Id. at 142-143.
71 A similar provision is also found in 1987 ADM. CODE, book V, chap. 9, sec. 52.
72 690 Phil. 59 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, En Banc].
73 Id. at 71.
74 See Mendoza v. Commission on Audit, 717 Phil. 491 (2013) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]; Magno v. Commission on Audit, 558 Phil. 76 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc]; Singson v. Commission on Audit, 641 Phil. 154 (2010) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc]; Lumayna v. Commission on Audit, 616 Phil. 928 (2009) [Per J. del Castillo, En Banc]; Barbo v. Commission on Audit, 589 Phil. 289 (2008) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc]; Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Government Service Insurance System v. Commission on Audit, et al, 480 Phil. 861 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; Veloso v. Commission on Audit, 672 Phil. 419 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc]; Abanilla v. Commission on Audit, 505 Phil. 202 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; Home Development Mutual Fund v. Commission on Audit, 483 Phil. 666 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]; Public Estates Authority v. Commission on Audit, 541 Phil. 412 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Commission on Audit, 599 Phil. 455 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]; Benguet State University v. Commission on Audit,.551 Phil. 878 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc]; Agra v. Commission on Audit, 661 Phil. 563 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc]; and Blaquera v. Commission on Audit, 356 Phil. 678 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
75Manila International Airport Authority v. Commission on Audit, 681 Phil. 644, 668-670 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc]; Benguet State University v. Commission on Audit, 551 Phil. 878, 888 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].
76 J. Brion, Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Technical Education and Skills Development Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 204869, March 11, 2014, 718 SCRA 402, 449 [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
77 Id. See Velasco v. Commission on Audit, 695 Phil. 226 (2012) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
78 690 Phil. 104 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc].
79 Id. at 115.
80 451 Phil. 812 (2003) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
81 Id. at 823-824, citing Blaquera v. Alcala, 356 Phil. 678 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc] and Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit, 425 Phil. 326 (2002) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc]
82Rollo, p. 116
83 Id. at 125.
84 Id. at 254.
85 Id. at 97.
86 Id. at 131.