GR 194530; (July, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 194530 . July 07, 2020.
THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY UNDERSECRETARY RAFAEL E. SEGUIS, FRANKLIN M. EBDALIN, MA. CORAZON YAP-BAHJIN, EVA G. BETITA, JOCELYN BATOON-GARCIA, AND LEO HERRERA-LIM, FOR THEMSELVES AND IN BEHALF OF OTHER DFA PERSONNEL WITH WHOM THEY SHARE A COMMON AND GENERAL INTEREST, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The Commission on Audit (COA) issued Resolution No. 2008-005 dated February 15, 2008, imposing filing fees for appeals from notices of disallowance, money claims, and requests for condonation. Between September and October 2008, the COA Resident Auditor at the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) issued nineteen Notices of Disallowance (NDs) concerning terminal leave benefits totaling P33,038,107.61. In November 2008, twenty personnel of the Philippine Embassy in London received NDs for allowances totaling P7,221,324.94. The DFA appealed these NDs, but the Resident Auditor returned the appeals without action for failure to pay the required filing fees under the Resolution. The DFA filed a motion before the COA to suspend the Resolution’s implementation, arguing it violated constitutional due process, was vague, and derogated substantive rights. The COA denied the motion in Decision No. 2009-089 and again in Decision No. 2010-090 upon motion for reconsideration. The DFA then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether COA Resolution No. 2008-005 is unconstitutional for violating the guarantee of due process of law, for being excessive and oppressive, and for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court ruled that the Resolution was validly promulgated by the COA en banc, as the term “en banc” does not require full membership but means the commission acting as a collegial body. At the time of promulgation, only two members constituted the Commission Proper due to a vacancy, which was sufficient. The imposition of filing fees is within COA’s constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings and practice before it under Section 6, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution . The filing fees do not violate due process as the right to appeal is not a constitutional right, and the fees are intended to partially cover adjudication costs. The fees are not excessive or oppressive, as the schedule is reasonable and includes a cap. The requirement to pay filing fees before an appeal is given due course is a valid procedural rule that does not diminish substantive rights. The COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Resolution.