EN BANC
[G.R. No. 217538. June 20, 2017.]
GREGORIO Y. PANG AND WILFREDO C. MANUEL, petitioners,vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT-LEGAL SERVICES SECTOR; HON. ELIZABETH S. ZOSA, IN HER CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND GENERAL COUNSEL; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XIII; AND THE AUDIT TEAM LEADER, NIA-REGION XIII-CARAGA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJUNE 20, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 217538 (Gregorio Y. Pang and Wilfredo C. Manuel v. Commission on Audit-Legal Services Sector; Hon. Elizabeth S. Zosa, in her capacity as Assistant Commissioner and General Counsel; The Regional Director, COA Regional Office No. XIII; and the Audit Team Leader, NIA-Region XIII-CARAGA). — Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, and Section 1, Rule XII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit (COA), seeking to nullify the COA Order of Execution (COE)1 dated January 5, 2015 directing the withholding of payment of salaries or any amount due to petitioners for the settlement of their liabilities, pursuant to the COA Resolution 2 dated December 6, 2013.
The COA Resolution dated December 6, 2013 denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration of COA Decision No. 2012-233 3 dated December 10, 2012 which affirmed COA Regional Office (RO) XIII Decision No. 2010-008 4 dated December 7, 2010 as regards the disallowance of the salaries, allowances and other benefits of the petitioners and other personnel of the Lower Agusan Development Project — Irrigation Component (LADP-IC) of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA).
Petitioners alleged that they have not received a copy of the aforesaid Resolution dated December 6, 2013; thus, the issuance of the COE is allegedly in violation of their right to due process, The factual antecedents are as follows:
The NIA is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under R.A. 3601, 5 as amended. The LADP-IC is a government project, implemented through the NIA, located in Butuan City, Agusan del Norte. The project is funded by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and involved the construction of two (2) pumping stations, project office facilities, irrigation and drainage canals, and on-farm facilities to irrigate 7,922 hectares of land. 6
Petitioners Engr. Gregorio Y. Pang (Pang) and Wilfredo C. Manuel (Manuel) were given co-terminous appointments as Project Manager and Division Manager B, respectively, of the LADP-IC. They are currently involved in the Umayam Communal Irrigation Project (UMAYAM) of Trento, Agusan del Sur occupying the same positions aforementioned. 7
The LADP-IC was completed and turned over to NIA Regional Office No. XIII in December 2006. 8 Thereafter, the services of petitioners and two other personnel — Miguelito C. Yucosing (Division Manager B) and Iluminado Q. Santos (Principal Engineer B) were transferred to the Umayam Project and Sta. Josefa Pump Irrigation Project (SJPIP) for the detailed engineering works of the aforesaid projects. 9 Hence, the co-terminous appointments of the concerned personnel of the LADP-IC were renewed on December 29, 2006 and were approved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). 10
On September 22, 2008, Sharon S. Azote, Acting Team Leader (ATL), NIA RO No. XIII, Butuan City, issued Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. 2008-003 PIO ADS 101 MDS stating that a total of P1,702,754.00 expenditures for CY 2007 resulting from the irregular extension of co-terminous appointments of the key personnel of LADP-IC has been disallowed in audit. ATL Azote considered the extended appointments of petitioners as violative of Number 3, NIA Memorandum Circular No. 014, series of 1988, 11 which provides:
3. Should there be a need for the services of project personnel beyond the completion of their project, the following alternatives may be considered:
a. Consider them for appointment to a vacant monthly item for which they qualify.
The employee may only report for work upon receipt of notice of approval of his appointment.
b. In the absence of a monthly vacant item, appoint the project employee to a daily position corresponding to the duties and responsibilities to be assigned to him. Such position should not be of a level higher than that of his immediate supervisor.
c. Issue a contract of services as a consultant subject to approval of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)/Civil Service Commission (CSC) (Applicable to APM/PM Level only). 12
ATL Azote then issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2009-0018 (2007) Fund 101 MDS and ND No. 2009-0019 (2007) Fund 101 MDS, both dated April 4, 2009, ND No. 2009-020 (2007) Fund 101 MDS and ND No. 2009-0021 (2007) Fund 101 MDS, both dated April 8, 2009, for each of the four personnel aforementioned, in the total amount of P1,417,971.01. 13 The parties primarily liable and secondarily liable, in case of the former's inability, were directed to reimburse the amount to 101 MDS Fund.
Aggrieved, RIM Democratico P. Grana, Jr., (RIM Engr. Grana, Jr.) in behalf of the petitioners, filed a Notice of Appeal and an Appeal Memorandum before the COA RO No. XIII, Butuan City. aScITE
In Decision No. 2010-008 dated December 7, 2010, the Regional Director (RD), COA RO No. XIII denied the appeal and affirmed the Notices of Disallowance. The pertinent portion of the Decision states:
The finding of irregularities in the renewal of appointments is in order since the extension or renewal of co-terminous contract with LADP-IC has no more factual basis when LADP-IC has already ceased to exist. Also, the drawing of salaries, allowances and other benefits from separate GAA funded projects (UMAYAM and SJPIP) by personnel holding appointments issued co-terminous with LADP-IC, a Foreign Assisted Project which has already been completed, thus deemed terminated is not only irregular but also illegal being penalized as illegal use of funds. These glaring irregularities are deemed sufficient bases for Auditor Gazote to disallow the salaries, allowances and other benefits drawn from UMAYAM and SJPIP by the personnel holding co-terminous appointments with LADP-IC. 14
In addition, the RD had the following findings: (a) LADP-IC is a foreign-assisted project which was completed in December 2006, while UMAYAM and SJPIP are GAA-funded projects; thus, the three projects are distinct and separate from each other; (b) the renewed appointments dated December 29, 2006 of the LADP-IC personnel showed they were co-terminous with the LADP-IC with no specific completion date indicated in violation of CSC MC No. 38, series of 1993, 15 specifically Item II, No. 4.a.4 16 thereof; (c) NIA MC No. 14 which provides for the procedures to be observed should there be a need for the services of project personnel after the completion of the project was not followed by petitioners; (d) if indeed, there was the necessity for the personnel to act as consultants, the same should have been included in the Program of Works of LADP-IC; (e) it was not shown that the costs of the consultants were more expensive than the renewal of appointments of concerned personnel, neither was it proven that there was the absence of personnel with the same expertise as the subject personnel.
On February 3, 2011, RIM Engr. Grana, Jr. and petitioner Pang filed an Appeal-Memorandum 17 before the COA Commission Proper which was denied in Decision No. 2012-233 dated December 10, 2012, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the NDs are AFFIRMED. 18
In its Decision, the COA Commission Proper ratiocinated that:
It is clear from the documents submitted that LADP-IC is a foreign-assisted project funded by the JICA, while UMAYAM and SJPIP are GAA-funded projects, each project distinct from each other. There is no statement or document showing that SJPIP is an extension of LADP-IC, as Appellants contend. It appears further that while LADP-IC was completed in December 2006, the SJPIP was approved by the NIA Board in August 2008 under NIA Resolution 7510-08, Series of 2008. Said Board Resolution did not mention SJPIP as connected to or a continuation of LADP-IC. It is, thus, difficult to understand the basis for appellants' posture that SJPIP is an extension or is connected to LADP-IC, to justify the drawing of funds from SJPIP for the payment of salaries, allowances and other benefits of the personnel whose co-terminous appointments were renewed under the LADP-IC project. Appellants would like to make it appear that indeed SJPIP is an extension of LADP-IC as the two expensive pumps from LADP-IC were transferred to SJPIP. 19
In an Indorsement dated March 25, 2013, a Notice of Finality of Decision 20 of even date was issued by the COA Commission Proper.
On May 27, 2013, petitioner Pang filed a Manifestation (with Motion to Admit Motion for Reconsideration). 21 It is stated in the said Manifestation that petitioner Pang did not personally receive the Decision No. 2012-233 dated December 10, 2012 due to the demise of his counsel, Atty. Rolando F. Carlota. Petitioner argued that they need not refund the disallowed amount since they received the same in good faith considering that they had rendered services by authority of the NIA management and by virtue of the CSC-approved appointments. According to petitioner, the principle of quantum meruit which allows recovery of reasonable value or as much as one reasonably deserves should be applied in their favor.
In a Resolution dated December 6, 2013, the COA Commission Proper denied the motion for reconsideration. The pertinent portion of the Resolution states:
The CP denied the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit and affirmed the COA Decision No. 2012-233 dated December 10, 2012 which already attained finality. The Motion for Reconsideration was filed beyond the thirty-day period prescribed under Section 10, Rule X of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA, as amended. Moreover, there are no new and material arguments raised that would warrant the reversal or modification of the assailed Decision. 22
On September 10, 2014, a Notice of Finality of Decision 23 was issued by the COA Commission Secretary.
On November 25, 2014, petitioner Pang sent a letter 24 to the COA asking why the Notice of Finality of Decision dated September 10, 2014 was issued considering that he had not received a copy of the Resolution dated December 6, 2013 which was the basis for the issuance of the said Notice of Finality of Decision.
In a letter 25 dated December 16, 2014, the Commission Secretary claimed that they mailed a copy of the Resolution to petitioners under Registry Receipt No. 466.
On January 5, 2015, the COA Order of Execution 26(COE) was issued directing the withholding of the payment of salaries or any amount due to petitioners and other personnel of the LAD-IC Project for the settlement of their liabilities. HEITAD
Hence, this petition, raising this lone issue:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ORDER OF EXECUTION EVEN WHEN THE COA RESOLUTION UPON WHICH THE ISSUANCE OF SAID ORDER IS BASED WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.
Petitioners argue in their Petition 27 that the COA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the COE without first ascertaining their receipt of the Resolution upon which the said COE is based in violation of their right to due process. According to petitioners, the statement of COA that petitioners were furnished a copy of the Resolution under Registry Receipt No. 466 dated January 30, 2014 is not credible. Because if the Resolution was indeed served, a copy of the Registry Return Card evidencing the alleged receipt by petitioners should have been attached in the letter-reply of the COA Commission Secretary.
In the Comment 28 of respondents, they countered that, under Section 3 (v) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, there is a disputable presumption that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of mail, such that, for failure of the petitioners to present countervailing evidence, the presumption of receipt applies. Mere denial of the receipt will not apply to overcome the presumption.
We deny the petition.
Section 3 (v) of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
xxx xxx xxx
(v) That a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail.
In the present case, it appears that a copy of the Notice as regards the issuance of the Resolution dated December 6, 2013 was mailed to petitioner Pang on January 28, 2014 as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 466. 29 Likewise, the Certificate of Service 30 would show that the same was personally served on petitioner Pang on the same date, January 28, 2014, through a certain Guillermo Vicente.
Thus, the fact that a copy of the Notice was mailed to petitioner Pang, there is a presumption that the same was received by him in the regular course of mail in the absence of proof to the contrary. Petitioner Pang denied having received any copy of the Notice either through mail or personal service but did not adduce proof to rebut the presumption. The presumption of receipt by petitioner Pang, therefore, stands.
In addition, as correctly raised by the respondents, petitioners cannot feign ignorance of the existence of the Resolution dated December 6, 2013 which denied their motion for reconsideration, since they mentioned about the issuance of the Notice of Finality of Decision dated September 10, 2014 in their letter for clarification before the COA. Petitioners should have reasonably expected that an order directing the payment or refund of the disallowed amounts was forthcoming in accordance with the COA Revised Rules of Procedure as, in fact, a Notice of Finality of Decision was issued on September 10, 2014.
Assuming arguendo, there is absence of receipt by petitioner Pang of a copy of the Resolution, such does not deprive him of his right to due process. This court, in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 31 ruled that administrative due process requires only the following:
(a) The party should be allowed to present his or her own case and submit supporting evidence;
(b) The deciding tribunal must consider the party's evidence;
(c) There is evidence to support the tribunal's decision;
(d) The evidence supporting the tribunal's decision must be substantial or such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion";
(e) The tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented or the records of the case disclosed to the parties;
(f) The tribunal's decision must be based on the judges' independent consideration of the facts and law governing the case; and
(g) The tribunal's decision must be rendered such that the issues of the case and the reasons for the decisions are known to the parties.
Due process is satisfied if the party who is properly notified of allegations against him or her is given an opportunity to defend himself or herself against those allegations, and such defense was considered by the tribunal in arriving at its own independent conclusions. 32 As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met. What is offensive to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard. 33
Due process simply demands an opportunity to be heard and this opportunity was not denied petitioners. They fully participated in the proceedings and in the appeals process since the time the disbursements were disallowed. Their arguments were sufficiently expressed in the pleadings they submitted to the COA and were able to state their substantive defenses. This Court En Banc, in Gannapao v. Civil Service Commission, 34 ruled that:
Time and again, we have held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process. 35 ATICcS
Petitioners herein were afforded due process despite their false claim that they had never personally received a copy of the COA Resolution. They were able to file the motion for reconsideration. The COA Commission Proper gave due course to the motion. Petitioners, therefore, have been duly afforded an opportunity to explain their side and seek a reconsideration of the ruling they assail, which is the "essence of administrative due process." 36
It is a fundamental rule that when a judgment becomes final and executory it becomes immutable and unalterable, the prevailing party can have it executed as a matter of right, and the issuance of a writ of execution becomes a ministerial duty of the court. 37 The pertinent provisions of Rule XIII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA are hereunder reproduced:
Section 1. Execution of Decision. — Execution shall issue upon a decision that finally disposes of the case. Such execution shall issue as a matter of right upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been fully perfected.
Section 2. Notice of Finality of Decision (NFD). — An NFD directing the persons liable to pay/refund the amount disallowed shall be issued by the following officials, upon a decision that has become final and executory:
1. Auditor — for ND/NC or Decision issued by him
2. Director who supervised the special audit team-for ND/NC issued by the audit team
3. Director — for decision rendered by him
4. General Counsel — for decision of the ASB
5. Commission Secretary — for decision of the CP
Section 3. COA Order of Execution (COE). — In case of failure of the person(s) liable to refund the amount disallowed/charged as provided in the preceding section, the COE directing the Cashier/Treasurer/Disbursing Officer to withhold payment of any money due such person(s) shall be issued by the following:
1. Director — for NFDs issued by him and the by Auditor
2. General Counsel — for NFD issued by him and by the Commission Secretary, and for judgments rendered by the Supreme Court
Hence, since there was failure on the part of the petitioners to refund the amount disallowed/charged as provided in the Notice of Finality of Decision dated September 10, 2014, the issuance of the COE is in order pursuant to the abovecited provisions.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Order of Execution dated January 5, 2015, issued by the Commission on Audit, pursuant to its Resolution dated December 6, 2013 and Decision No. 2012-233 dated December 10, 2012, is hereby AFFIRMED." Sereno, C.J., on leave. Carpio, J., on official leave. Caguioa, J., on leave. (adv17)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Signed by Assistant Commissioner and General Counsel Elizabeth S. Zosa; rollo, pp. 19-21.
2.Rollo, p. 116.
3. Signed by Commissioner Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan, Chairperson, with Commissioners Juanita G. Espino, Jr. and Heidi L. Mendoza, concurring; id. at 110-115.
4.Rollo, pp. 38-46.
5.An Act Creating the National Irrigation Administration.
6.Rollo, p. 5.
7.Id. at 4-5, 110.
8.Id. at 110.
9.Id. at 23.
10.Id. at 38.
11. SUBJECT: Extended Services Beyond Project Completion.
12.Rollo, p. 111.
13.Id. at 40-41.
14.Id. at 44.
15.Omnibus Guidelines on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions.
16. II.4.a.4.Co-terminous — issued to a person whose entrance and continuity in the service is based on the trust and confidence of the appointing authority or that which is subject to his pleasure or co-existent to his tenure or limited by the duration of a project or subject to the availability of funds or issued for a position which is co-existent with the appointee or as provided for by law.
Appointments of personnel under Foreign-assisted projects shall be issued and approved as co-terminous with the project, in which case, the name of the project and its completion date shall be indicated on the appointment.
17.Rollo, pp. 47 to 54-A.
18.Id. at 114.
19.Id. at 113.
20.Id. at 61-63.
21.Id. at 55-59.
22.Id. at 116.
23.Id. at 122-124.
24.Id. at 64-65.
25.Id. at 66.
26.Id. at 19-21.
27.Id. at 3-17.
28.Id. at 95-107.
29.Id. at 117.
30.Id. at 118.
31. 69 Phil. 635, 642-644 (1940).
32.Gutierrez v. COA, G.R. No. 200628, January 13, 2015, 745 SCRA 435, 453.
33.Flores v. Montemayor, 666 Phil. 393, 403 (2011).
34. 665 Phil. 60 (2011).
35.Gannapao v. Civil Service Commission, supra, at 70. (Emphasis ours)
36.Engr. Mendoza v. COA, 717 Phil. 491, 503 (2013).
37.PDIC v. COA, 570 Phil. 79, 84 (2008).