G.R. No. 258159 , June 13, 2023
EFRAIM C. GENUINO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), COMMISSION PROPER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE GOVERNMENT SECTOR, CLUSTER 6, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR JOSEPH B. ANACAY, AND OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISING AUDITOR, REPRESENTED BY BELEN B. LADINES, IN HER CAPACITY AS COA SUPERVISING AUDITOR – PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kho, Jr. regarding the application of a new judicial doctrine on the Commission on Audit’s (COA) audit jurisdiction over the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). The ponencia (main decision) upheld the Court’s ruling in the “2023 Genuino Decision,” which held that COA has the power to examine and audit all funds of government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, including PAGCOR. This 2023 decision overturned the earlier “2021 Genuino Decision” and the “2021 Figueroa Decision,” which had held that COA had limited jurisdiction over PAGCOR. The ponencia also upheld the 2023 Genuino Decision’s finding that its ruling is prospective in application, following the rule in People v. Jabinal that a new doctrine should not apply to parties who relied on the old doctrine. The disallowed transactions in this specific case occurred in 2008 and 2009.

ISSUE

Whether the new doctrine on COA’s expanded audit jurisdiction over PAGCOR, as established in the 2023 Genuino Decision, should be applied to the petitioner’s case involving disbursements made in 2008 and 2009, and consequently, whether the propriety of the disallowance and the petitioner’s liability should be re-examined in light of the rules on prospectivity of judicial decisions.

RULING

Justice Kho, Jr. concurs with the ponencia in upholding the 2023 Genuino Decision and its prospective application. However, he dissents on the ponencia’s determination of the propriety of the disallowance and the petitioner’s liability. He maintains that the new doctrine should not be applied to the disbursements made in this case. He reiterates the view from his earlier Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in the 2023 Genuino Decision that the rules of retroactivity and prospectivity of judicial decisions bar such application. He argues that the approving and certifying officers could have relied in good faith on the old doctrine (the 2021 Genuino Decision) for transactions made prior to its finality. He further cites Philippine International Trading Corporation v. COA (PITC), arguing that since the 2021 Genuino Decision (the old doctrine) neither reversed an old doctrine nor adopted a new one at the time it was rendered, it should be retroactively applied to disbursements made prior to it. He also suggests that the petitioner’s situation exhibits “badges of good faith,” as there was no precedent disallowing similar transactions prior to the 2021 Figueroa and Genuino Decisions, and there was a reasonable textual interpretation supporting the legality of the disbursements based on the PAGCOR Charter. Consequently, Justice Kho, Jr. votes to PARTLY GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the Commission on Audit Decision Nos. 2019-115 and 2021-263.