G.R. No. 251995 , January 26, 2021
RHODORA J. CADIAO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On July 24, 2008, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Antique passed Resolution No. 163A-2008, adopting Appropriations Ordinance No. 2008-05, which included a grant of financial assistance amounting to P2,950,000.00 to the Liga ng mga Barangay, Antique Chapter, chargeable against the 20% Development Fund for Fiscal Year 2008, intended for the payment of insurance premiums for Punong Barangays. The resolution was approved by Governor Salvacion Perez. Petitioner Rhodora J. Cadiao, then Vice-Governor and Presiding Officer of the SP, attested to the resolution. On post-audit, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2011-0004-101(08) dated June 8, 2011, disallowing the expenditure on the grounds that: (1) insurance coverage for Punong Barangays is already provided by the GSIS under the Local Government Code; (2) the expenditure is not among the projects allowed to be charged against the 20% development fund per relevant guidelines; and (3) the SP has no authority to provide additional insurance coverage. The ND named several persons liable, including petitioner, for attesting/approving the resolution. Some SP members appealed to the COA Regional Office (COA RO), which excluded them from liability after finding they had abstained or were absent during the voting. Petitioner did not file a timely appeal. The COA Proper affirmed the ND as to petitioner, noting her failure to appeal rendered the disallowance final and executory as to her, and that her active participation as Presiding Officer, including remarks supporting the grant during the session, established her liability.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Audit acted with grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disallowance and holding petitioner Rhodora J. Cadiao liable.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the Commission on Audit did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner’s failure to appeal the Notice of Disallowance within the six-month reglementary period under COA rules rendered the disallowance final and executory as to her. The Court found that her participation was not merely ministerial; as the Presiding Officer, she actively facilitated the passage of the resolution. The Minutes of the session showed she expressed support for the financial assistance, stating she was “excited and elated” and commended the lobbying for it. By attesting to the resolution, she attested to the regularity of the proceedings and the transaction. The disallowed expenditure was properly disallowed as it constituted an illegal expenditure—an additional compensation/benefit not authorized by law, as insurance for barangay officials is already mandated to be provided by the GSIS. Thus, petitioner was correctly held liable for her participation in approving an illegal disbursement of public funds.