CASE DIGEST
Development Bank of the
Philippines v. Commission on Audit
G.R. No. 247787, [March 2, 2021]
EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V
Immutability of Final
Judgment; Petition for Review; Remedy against COA Decisions;Legal Standing; real
party in interest
The term "aggrieved party"
presupposes that the movant or appellant is a party to the original proceedings
that gave rise to the assailed decision, order, or ruling. The question as to real party in interest is whether he is the party who
would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit.
The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) granted salary increases to its senior officers totaling P17 million, which the supervising auditor initially disallowed for lack of prior approval from the Office of the President. However, the DBP cited a memorandum from former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo approving the compensation plan from 1999 onwards, leading the Commission on Audit (COA) to lift the disallowance. Subsequently, Pagaragan, the Vice President/Officer-In-Charge of DBP's Program Evaluation Department submitted confidential letters to the COA arguing that President Arroyo's approval, made within 45 days before the May 10, 2010 elections, was void under Section 261(g)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code. Treating these letters as a motion for reconsideration, the COA reopened the case and reversed its decision, prompting DBP to seek reconsideration, which was partly granted. While sustaining the disallowance, the COA exempted the approving officers and the recipients from liability based on the presumption of good faith.
Whether or not Pagaragan is a real
party in interest.
NO.
Pagaragan is not a real party in interest or an aggrieved party who is entitled
to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal. The question as to real party
in interest is whether he is the party who would be benefited or injured by the
judgment, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Pagaragan questions
the validity of former President Arroyo's approval of the DBP's compensation
plan but failed to establish that he has the requisite personal and substantial
interest. Pagaragan did not sustain any direct injury or is in danger of
suffering any damages from the assailed salary increases. To be sure, the allowance
or disallowance of the salary increases will not affect Pagaragan. Verily,
Pagaragan was not a party to the original proceedings and merely came into the
picture when the COA lifted the notice of disallowance.
Whether or not the COA Decision is
already final and executory.
YES.
The COA's Decision dated February 1, 2012 is already final and executory absent
a timely motion for reconsideration or appeal. The COA Rules of Procedure is
explicit that the Commission's Decision or Resolution shall become final and
executory after 30 days from notice unless a motion for reconsideration or an appeal
to the Supreme Court is filed.
Here, the COA lifted the notice of disallowance on February
1, 2012. The DBP received a copy of the COA's Decision on February 6 and it has
30 days or until March 7 to move for a reconsideration or file a petition to
the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, Pagaragan's letters which the COA treated
as a motion for reconsideration was filed only on March 27 or beyond the 30-day
reglementary period. Hence, the COA has no more jurisdiction to entertain
Pagaragan's letters. Taken together, the COA committed grave abuse of
discretion in reviewing a final and executory judgment and reopening a settled
account beyond the legal period. Nothing is more settled that a definitive
final judgment is no longer subject to change or revision.
No comments:
Post a Comment