Social Security System v. Commission on Audit [G.R. No. 217075, June 22, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Social Security System v. Commission on Audit

[G.R. No. 217075, June 22, 2021]

EN BANC, ROSARIO, R.

 

Rule 64 Petition for Certiorari; COA Disallowance; CNA Incentives; Solutio Indebiti

 

Under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, a timely motion for reconsideration interrupts the thirty (30)-day period to assail a Commission on Audit (COA) decision; upon denial of the motion, the aggrieved party has only the remaining period, which in no case shall be less than five (5) days from notice. Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives may be given only to the rank-and-file employees who are members of the negotiating unit, and any amount disallowed by COA for want of legal basis must be returned by the responsible officers and recipients pursuant to the rules on liability for disallowed government expenditures.

 

On 6 July 2005, the Social Security Commission approved a P20,000.00 Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentive for employees belonging to the negotiating unit, and an equal “counterpart” benefit for personnel outside it, including confidential, coterminous, and contractual employees, lawyers, and executives. On post-audit, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Notice of Disallowance No. SSS-2007-001, disallowing the counterpart benefit in the total amount of P6.18 million, on the ground that only rank-and-file employees covered by the CNA were entitled to the incentive. 

The COA Legal Services Sector, and later the COA Commission Proper, affirmed the disallowance. The Social Security System (SSS) received the Commission Proper's decision on 15 May 2014 and filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) on 11 June 2014, by which time only three (3) days remained of the thirty (30)-day period under Rule 64. SSS received the Commission Secretary's Notice denying the MR on 4 February 2015 but, after first seeking clarification from COA, filed its Rule 64 petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court only on 20 March 2015. 

 

Whether the Rule 64 petition for certiorari was timely filed and, if so, whether the Commission on Audit correctly disallowed the P6.18 million counterpart CNA incentive and correctly ordered its return. 

NO. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time. A timely MR interrupts the 30-day period under Rule 64, Section 3; it does not give a fresh 30 days. Upon denial, only the remaining period resumes, subject to a five (5)-day minimum from notice. SSS's MR left only three (3) days of the original period; counting the five (5)-day minimum from its receipt of the 4 February 2015 Notice of denial, SSS had until 9 February 2015 to file. It filed only on 20 March 2015, 39 days too late. The Commission Secretary's prescribed Notice, issued under COA Resolution No. 2013-018, was sufficient notice of denial; SSS could not postpone the period by seeking clarification. 

Even so, the Court addressed the merits arguendo and sustained the disallowance. Review of COA decisions under Rule 64 is by certiorari, not ordinary appeal; absent grave abuse of discretion, the Court will not disturb COA's findings, given its constitutional mandate as guardian of public funds. On the merits, P.D. No. 1597, E.O. No. 180, A.O. No. 103, and the PSLMC resolutions limit CNA incentives to eligible rank-and-file employees within the negotiating unit; executives, lawyers, and managerial, confidential, and coterminous personnel outside that unit are not entitled to a “counterpart” benefit merely for contributing to the agency's savings. Applying Madera v. COA, the approving/certifying officers could not invoke the presumption of good faith because the payment violated explicit rules, and the recipients, having no legal entitlement to the incentive, were required to return what they received on the basis of solutio indebiti.

 

WHEREFORE, the petition was DISMISSED. COA Decision No. 2014-069 and the denial of the motion for reconsideration were AFFIRMED. The disallowance of the P6.18 million counterpart CNA incentive stood, and the responsible approving/certifying officers and the recipients were held liable to return the disallowed amount.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT