G.R. No. 261280 , October 03, 2023
INCUMBENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NEDA) REGIONAL OFFICE (RO) XIII: DELA CALZADA, MICHELLE P., ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, ET AL.

FACTS

Pursuant to CSC and NEDA issuances, NEDA Regional Office XIII (Caraga) granted Cost Economy Measure Awards (CEMA) to its employees in 2010, 2011, and 2012. Upon post-audit, the audit team found the CEMA irregular and unauthorized for not conforming to the Total Compensation Framework, lacking specific appropriations, and lacking clear metrics. A Notice of Disallowance (ND) was issued, holding the approving/certifying officers and the recipient employees liable. The COA National Government Sector affirmed the ND but absolved the passive recipient employees from refund liability. The COA Proper, in Decision No. 2018-306, approved this ruling, confirming the ND, the officers’ liability, and the recipients’ absolution based on good faith. The approving officers filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but the recipient employees did not. In the assailed Decision No. 2021-491, the COA Proper sustained the ND and the officers’ solidary liability. It then, motu proprio, revisited and reversed its prior ruling on the recipients’ liability, ordering them to refund the amounts received, citing supervening jurisprudence (Chozas, Rotoras, Dubongco, DPWH v. COA) on unjust enrichment. The recipient employees filed this Petition for Certiorari, arguing the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion by reversing a final ruling in which they were no longer parties, violating due process and the doctrine of immutability of judgments.

ISSUE

Whether the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion in reinstating the liability of the recipient employees (Dela Calzada et al.) in the Notice of Disallowance based on the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed only by the approving and/or certifying officers.

RULING

Yes, the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court granted the petition and annulled the portion of the COA Proper’s Decision No. 2021-491 that held the recipient employees liable.
The Court held that the COA Proper’s act of reviewing and reversing its prior ruling on the recipients’ liability, which was no longer questioned by any party, deviated from its own 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure, the Rules of Court, the doctrine of immutability of final judgments, and the principle of prospective overruling, and violated the recipients’ right to due process. The COA Rules require an aggrieved party to file a motion for reconsideration. The recipients, having been absolved, were not aggrieved and did not file such a motion; the motion filed by the officers did not implead them or seek relief against them. Therefore, as to the recipients, Decision No. 2018-306 had attained finality and immutability. The COA Proper’s reliance on supervening jurisprudence to justify its reversal was erroneous. The cited cases (Chozas, Rotoras) were decided before the COA Proper’s final Decision No. 2018-306 and thus were not supervening events. Furthermore, the principle of prospective overruling should have been applied to prevent injustice, as the recipients had already been definitively absolved under the Silang doctrine prevailing at the time. By disregarding these fundamental rules and principles, the COA Proper acted in a capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary manner equivalent to an excess of jurisdiction, constituting grave abuse of discretion.