G.R. No. 233308, August 18, 2020
DELILAH J. ABLONG, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners, faculty members of Negros Oriental State University (NORSU), received Economic Relief Allowance (ERA) for 2008-2010 pursuant to a Board of Regents resolution. In 2011, the COA Audit Team issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) against these payments, citing lack of presidential approval and improper charging against tuition fees. The NDs and transmittal letter were received by NORSU’s Acting Chief Accountant on February 16, 2011. No appeal was filed, leading to a Notice of Finality of Decision (NFD) and a subsequent COA Order of Execution (COE) to recover the disallowed amounts.
The petitioners claimed they only learned of the disallowance in late 2011 when furnished copies by their Dean’s office, not from the accountant. In January 2012, petitioner Ablong wrote to the COA Regional Director requesting reconsideration of the COE, arguing they were not properly notified and received the allowances in good faith. The Regional Director denied the request, stating the NDs were final. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Review before the COA Proper, which was dismissed for being filed out of time and for being an improper remedy, as it challenged a letter-reply enforcing a COE rather than appealing the ND itself.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the finality of the disallowance and the execution order despite alleged lack of proper notice to the petitioners and their claim of good faith.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the COA’s decision. The Court held that the petitioners’ right to due process was violated. Under COA Circular No. 2009-006, while service of an ND to the accountant constitutes constructive notice to all payees in a payroll, this rule presupposes that the accountant duly informs the concerned individuals. Here, the petitioners were not actually notified by the accountant, and their subsequent discovery of the NDs only through their Dean’s office was not attributable to them. Due process requires that parties be afforded a real opportunity to be heard. The violation of this right rendered the subsequent NFD and COE fatally defective.
Consequently, the strict application of reglementary periods for appeal was unjust. The case was remanded to the COA to resolve the petitioners’ appeal on the merits, including their substantive defenses like good faith. The Court emphasized that a decision rendered in violation of due process is void for lack of jurisdiction.