DOJ Opinion No. 192, s. 1982

DOJ OPINION NO. 192 , s. 1982 9th Indorsement September 2, 1982 Respectfully returned to the Governor, Central Bank of the Philippines, Manila, his within request for opinion relative to the request of Mr. Pedro M. Pascual, former Revenue Attache of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with station at Ottawa, Canada, for reimbursement of office expenses. It appears that the BIR, from August 11, 1975 up to January 8, 1976, filed four (4) applications for Fiscal Agency Services (FAS) totalling $2,927.52 (P20,891.58 in peso value) with the Central Bank in favor of Mr. Pedro M. Pascual to cover reimbursement of office expenses; that the proceeds of the four (4) above-mentioned requests for FAS were released by the Central Bank in favor of Mr. Florentino Isip, BIR Revenue Budget Examiner and liaison man with the Central Bank on the strength of authorization letters purportedly signed by Mr. Pedro M. Pascual; that Mr. Pascual denied having issued the aforesaid letters of authority to Mr. Isip; that upon the request of BIR, the Questioned Documents Section of the National Bureau of Investigation conducted an examination of the purported signatures of Pedro M. Pascual and came our with the conclusion that the signatures "Pedro M. Pascual" appearing in the four authorization letters presented by Mr. Isip, on one hand, and the sample signature of Mr. Pedro M. Pascual, on the other hand, "were not written by one and the same person", that thereafter the BIR submitted the claim for reimbursement of Mr. Pascual to the Ministry of the Budget for funding purposes; that acting upon the suggestion of the Chief, Division "A" of the National Accounting Office, the Minister of the Budget referred the said claim to the Commission on Audit as COA has the authority and power to settle all debts and claims of any sort due from or owing to the Government or any of the subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities per Sec. 26 of P.D. No. 1445"; that Ms. Rosalina M. Hebreo, Auditor VIII, in her 4th Indorsement to the Chairman of the COA dated February 20, 1982, suggested that the claim of Mr. Pascual be indorsed to the Central Bank for immediate settlement; that the aforementioned suggestion for Ms. Hebreo was concurred in by Mr. Cesar A. Dumale, COA Regional Director. It is your view that Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445 may not be applicable in the present case since the issue may not simply involve an audit or settlement of a government account but the issue of whether or not the Central Bank can be held accountable for releasing to Mr. Isip the proceeds of the four FAS applications on the basis of the documents received by it from Mr. Isip and of his representation that he is a duly authorized agent of BIR and of Mr. Pascual; that the question could be judicial in nature, the determination of which would require "the presentation of evidence, the weighing of their probative value and the application of judicial discretion. You would now request our opinion as to which government agency, the BIR or the Central Bank, has the responsibility to effect the reimbursement of Mr. Pascual's office expenses. With regret, we are constrained to forbear ruling on the query, since the question raised involves a mixed question of fact and law. The uniform policy followed by this Ministry and established by the precedent is for us not to render opinion on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, since the Minister of Justice, as Attorney-General, is empowered by statute to rule upon questions of law only (Opinions, Secretary of Justice, No. 128, s. 1977; No. 232, s. 1956: No. 46, s. 1950; No. 21, s. 1947; and dated March 30, 1936). Furthermore, the Office of the Commission on Audit has already issued a ruling on the matter. As to the opinion of the Minister of Justice is purely advisory and not in the nature of a decision, it cannot prevail over the rulings promulgated by the agency which, in the present case, is the Commission on Audit, an independent constitutional body primarily charged with the enforcement, implementation and administration of the law involve (see Opinion of the Secretary of Justice No. 145, series of 1973) and over which we have no revisory authority to pass upon questions or matters already ruled by it. (Opinion No. 181, s. 1976). LexLib Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice