G.R. No. 92585 May 8, 1992
CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HONORABLE COMMISSIONER BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER ALBERTO P. CRUZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Caltex Philippines, Inc. (CPI) filed a petition questioning the authority of the Commission on Audit (COA) in disallowing its claims for reimbursement from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). The COA, through letters dated February 2, 1989 and March 9, 1989, directed CPI to remit to the OPSF its unremitted collections of the additional tax on petroleum products under P.D. No. 1956, as amended, which amounted to P1,287,668,820.00 as of 1988. The COA informed CPI that pending such remittance, all claims for reimbursement from the OPSF would be held in abeyance and that CPI must desist from offsetting its remittances against its reimbursements. CPI proposed an arrangement whereby it would remit the amount due to the OPSF and simultaneously receive reimbursement for its claims from the Fund. The COA, in Decision No. 921 dated June 7, 1989, accepted the proposal but prohibited CPI from further offsetting remittances and reimbursements for current and ensuing years. Subsequently, the COA, in a letter dated November 6, 1989, disallowed specific claims of CPI for reimbursement from the OPSF, including financing charges, underrecoveries from sales to the National Power Corporation, Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation, and Marcopper Mining Corporation, and claims still pending with the Office of Energy Affairs and the Department of Finance. CPI sought the reversal of these disallowances.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Commission on Audit acted with grave abuse of discretion or without jurisdiction in disallowing petitioner Caltex Philippines, Inc.’s claims for reimbursement from the Oil Price Stabilization Fund and in prohibiting the offsetting of remittances against reimbursements.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the Commission on Audit did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The COA has the constitutional mandate to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to government funds, including the OPSF, which is a special fund for a public purpose. The COA’s disallowance of claims was based on its audit authority and the specific provisions governing the OPSF. The Court found that the claims for financing charges were properly disallowed as they were not among the authorized uses of the OPSF under the law. Claims for underrecovery from sales to specific entities were disallowed based on the Department of Finance’s determination that such sales were not entitled to reimbursement. The prohibition against offsetting was upheld as a valid exercise of COA’s power to ensure the proper application and management of public funds. The Court further ruled that the COA’s decisions were supported by law and were not tainted with arbitrariness or capriciousness.