EN BANC
[G.R. No. 212576. January 5, 2021.]
GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA, REUBEN M. ABANTE, JOSE L. GONZALEZ, AND QUINTIN PAREDES SAN DIEGO, petitioners,vs. MARIA GRACIA PULIDO-TAN, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), AND SUSANA P. GARCIA, DIRECTOR, SPECIAL AUDITS OFFICE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJANUARY 5, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212576 (Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica, Reuben M. Abante, Jose L. Gonzalez, and Quintin Paredes San Diego v. Maria Gracia Pulido-Tan, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Commission on Audit (COA), and Susana P. Garcia, Director, Special Audits Office). — This Petition for Mandamus1 (Petition) seeks the Commission on Audit's (COA) (1) issuance of notices of disallowance on the Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF) amounting to P6.156 billion, subject of the 2007 to 2009 COA Report, and (2) to furnish petitioners with copies thereof. 2
Petitioners allege that during the oral arguments conducted by this Court in Belgica v.·Ochoa, 3 respondent Maria Gracia Pulido-Tan (Pulido-Tan) declared that COA was already in the process of issuing notices of disallowance on the PDAF. 4 The transcript reads:
JUSTICE BERSAMIN:
Thank you Chief. Chairman, Chairman Pulido Tan again. I am just curious. Has the COA to your knowledge ever disallowed any PDAF allocation, whether soft or hard, that a Congressman or a Senator has directed?
CHAIRPERSON PULIDO TAN:
Yes, Your Honor. In respect of what we found out in our 2007 to 2009 report, we are in the process of issuing the Notices of Disallowance. But there is one recent case which I think the Honorable Court decided a month or so ago, this was the case involving the PDAF allocation of Congressman Cuenco of Cebu. . . (interrupted)
xxx xxx xxx
JUSTICE BERSAMIN:
So, I will presume from your answer that all these transactions, itong mga Napoles na sinasabi ha, I'm not condemning anyone or making a judgment. Kung hindi dumaan sa Procurement Law, technically speaking, strictly speaking, literally speaking, would be disallowed.
CHAIRPERSON PULIDO TAN:
Opo, opo, in process na po yung issuance. (Emphasis supplied) 5
According to petitioners, they reminded respondent Pulido-Tan of her commitment to issue the notices of disallowance through petitioner Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica's (Belgica) December 12, 2013 letter. 6 However, petitioner Belgica supposedly received no response. 7 Thus, petitioners filed the Petition in view of "respondents' neglect of their public duties [which] constitutes a serious breach of the mandate of the [COA] under the Constitution, the Revised Administrative Code, as well the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA, as well as the public right of the petitioners." 8·
In their Comment, 9 respondents belie petitioners' claim that their letter was never entertained. 10 Respondents attached a reply letter dated January 20, 2014, informing petitioner Belgica that as of January 15, 2014, 19 notices of disallowance have already been issued and served, that 27 are being finalized, and that many more under evaluation. 11 Respondents add that petitioners cannot be furnished with copies of the notices of disallowance as a matter of policy and in consideration of the right of the parties therein to appeal. 12
In their Reply, 13 petitioners insist that respondents have the duty to furnish them copies of the notices of disallowance pursuant to the State's policy of full public disclosure' and the people's right to information on matters of public concern. 14
Our Ruling
The Petition lacks merit.
Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for mandamus may be filed in case of unlawful neglect of duty:
SECTION 3. Petition for Mandamus. — When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.
The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. (3a) (Emphasis supplied)
Here, petitioners failed to show how respondents unlawfully neglected their duties. As manifested by respondents, COA has already issued notices of disallowance, covering almost 50% of the PDAF involved, 15 as early as six months prior to the filing of the Petition. 16 Further, at the time that respondents filed their Comment, COA was in the process of issuing the remaining notices. 17 Respondents should not be faulted based on petitioner Belgica's mistaken belief that respondent Pulido-Tan never responded to his letter following his failure to check his mailbox.
Further, petitioners failed to establish any clear legal right to be furnished with copies of the notices of disallowance. Section 6, Rule IV of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA provides that notices of disallowance may be released only to the parties having direct material interest, namely, the auditor, the head of the agency, and the officials directly affected by said notices:
Section 6. Number of Copies and Distribution. — The ND, NC, NS or other order or decision of the Auditor shall be prepared in such number of copies as may be necessary for distribution to the following: (1) original copy — to the head of the agency being audited; (2) duplicate copy — to the Auditor for his record; (3) other copies to the agency officials directly affected by the results of the audit for whom specified action or a response from the results of audit is expected as may be provided by law or the pertinent rules and regulations of the Commission. (Emphasis supplied)
The rationale behind the rule is to afford the persons liable the opportunity to appeal the disallowance, 18 which may be done within six months from notice. 19
Notices of disallowance are likewise confidential pursuant to COA Circular No. 2011-06: 20
3.8 Confidentiality of Cases Pending Adjudication — Except as to the status of cases, no information as to the action officer and/or the probable disposition or decision of any case pending adjudication before any office of this Commission shall be disclosed to any person. Violation hereof shall be the subject of administrative sanction provided under existing Civil Service Laws. (Emphasis supplied)
The purpose is to preserve and protect the information contained in the records of cases pending adjudication before COA. 21
Finally, petitioners failed to show how the State's policy of full public disclosure and the people's right to information entitle them to copies of the notices of disallowance. It is well-settled that the right to information is not absolute. 22 'It is limited to matters of public concern, and is subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Likewise, the State's policy of full public disclosure is restricted to transactions involving public interest, and is further subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.' 23 Without showing how the furnishing of copies to the petitioners is protected by these constitutional guarantees, and not covered by the limitations, the Petition fails.
WHEREFORE, this Court resolves to DISMISS the Petition for lack of merit." (adv13)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.). EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-23.
2.Id. at 21-22.
3. 721 Phil. 416 (2013).
4.Rollo, p. 7.
5.Id. at 27-28.
6.Id. at 9-10. The attached letter is dated December 12, 2012, but the year appears to be a mistake since the oral arguments transpired in 2013.
7.Id. at 10.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 51-69.
10.Id. at 53.
11.Id. at 73.
12.Id. at 63-67.
13.Id. at 85-92.
14.Id. at 86.
15.Id. at 58.
16.Id. at 53.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 65.
19. 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA, Rule IV, Sec. 8.
20. Guidelines in the disposition of requests for documents/records/reports/decisions and other information in the possession and/or custody of COA, including furnishing of copies thereof to requesting parties (2013).
21.Rollo, p. 66.
22.Sereno v. Committee on Trade and Related Matters (CTRM) of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), 780 Phil. 1, 12 (2016).
23.Id., citing Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 234 Phil. 521, 534 (1987).