G.R. No. 244128 , September 8, 2020
MARIO M. MADERA, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) AND COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VIII

FACTS

Petitioners, the mayor, municipal accountant, and budget officers of Mondragon, Northern Samar, assailed via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 the COA’s disallowance of Sangguniang Bayan ordinances and resolutions granting various allowances to municipal officials and employees, totaling P7,706,253.10. The COA held the petitioners jointly and severally liable to refund the disbursed amounts. The petitioners contended they approved the disbursements in good faith. Justice Leonen, in a Separate Concurring Opinion, agreed with the ponencia that the COA correctly issued the Notices of Disallowance but sought to clarify the guidelines on liability for authorizing officers and recipients of disallowed benefits.
The procedural issue concerned the timeliness of the petition. The reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 64, which governs reviews of COA decisions, is 30 days. This period began upon receipt of the COA Decision on February 23, 2018, was interrupted by a motion for reconsideration, and resumed upon receipt of the COA Resolution on November 12, 2018, giving petitioners until December 7, 2018. However, they erroneously applied the 60-day period under Rule 65 and filed on January 11, 2019, rendering the petition filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the allowances and in holding the petitioners liable, and whether the petition was filed on time.

RULING

The petition was filed out of time. Rule 64 specifically provides a 30-day period for appealing COA decisions. Petitioners’ erroneous application of Rule 65’s 60-day period did not toll the reglementary period. Nevertheless, the Court used this case to elucidate substantive guidelines on liability for disallowed transactions. On the merits, the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Constitution and the Government Auditing Code grant the COA exclusive authority to promulgate rules preventing irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expenditures. Judicial review of COA decisions is limited to instances of grave abuse of discretion, which is present only when the judgment is rendered capriciously or whimsically. No such abuse was found in the disallowance of the unauthorized allowances. Regarding liability, Justice Leonen concurred that approving officers who acted in good faith and with due diligence should be absolved from personal liability. The separate opinion emphasized the need for clear distinctions between the liability of authorizing officers and recipients, whether passive or active, to ensure fairness and align with principles of accountability and the prudent use of public funds.