EN BANC
[G.R. No. 253584. March 1, 2022.]
ARMANDO L. SURATOS, AMANDO M. TETANGCO, JR., ALBERTO V. REYES, and NESTOR A. ESPENILLA, JR., AS REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE, petitioners,vs.COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated MARCH 1, 2022, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 253584 (Armando L. Suratos, Amando M. Tetangco, Jr., Alberto V. Reyes, and Nestor A. Espenilla, Jr., as represented by his estate, vs. Commission on Audit). — This resolves the Petition for Certiorari, 1 under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit (COA) when it issued the following: (1) Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2012-001 2 dated July 13, 2012 of the COA Team Leader and Supervising Auditor, disallowing the monetary benefits of the Trade and Investment Development Corporation (TIDCORP) Board of Directors (Board) for the period of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010, in the amount of P4,539,835.02; (2) Decision 3 No. 2015-021 dated October 7, 2015 of the COA-Corporate Government Sector (CGS), which affirmed the disallowance; (3) Decision No. 2019-001 dated January 30, 2019 4 of the COA (assailed decision), which denied TIDCORP's Petition for Review 5 dated October 16, 2015 and affirmed the COA-CGS disallowance; and (4) Resolution 6 No. 2020-177 dated January 29, 2020 of the COA (assailed resolution), which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration 7 (MR) dated April 11, 2019, and affirmed the assailed decision.
The case involves the disputed monetary benefits claimed by petitioners in their capacity as TIDCORP board members. Petitioner Amando M. Tetangco, Jr. (Tetangco) was then Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), and as such was a regular member of the TIDCORP Board from July 4, 2005 to July 3, 2017. 8 Petitioners Armando L. Suratos (Suratos), Alberto V. Reyes (Reyes), and the late Nestor A. Espenilla, Jr. (Espenilla) were then Deputy Directors of the BSP, and thus served as Tetangco's alternate to the TIDCORP Board meetings whenever the latter was absent. 9
TIDCORP was formerly the Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, and was renamed as the Philippine Export-Import Credit Agency (PhilEXIM) on March 18, 2002. 10 Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1080 or the decree 'Revising Presidential Decree No. 550 Creating the Philippine Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation So It Will Now be Entitled the Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation' lists the powers of the TIDCORP Board as follows:
Section 11. Powers of the Board. — The Board shall have the authority:
(a) To formulate policies to carry out effectively the provisions of this Decree;
(b) To prepare and issue rules and regulations as it considers necessary for the effective discharge of the responsibilities and exercise of the powers assigned to the Corporation under this Decree;
(c) To direct management, operations and administration of the Corporation;
(d) On the recommendation of the President of the Corporation, appoint,fix the remunerations and other emoluments, and remove the personnel of the Corporation: Provided, however, That positions considered by the Board to be policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature shall not subject to the Civil Service Law; and
(e) To authorizesuch expenditure by the Corporation as are in the interest of the effective administration and operations of the Corporation.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 13. Remuneration of Members for Attending Meetings of the Board. — The members of the Board or their respective alternates, except the President of the Corporation, shall receive a per diem of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) for every Board meeting attended. (Emphasis, italics, and underscoring supplied)
Upon the other hand, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8494 or 'An Act Further Amending Presidential Decree No. 1080, as Amended, by Reorganizing and Renaming the Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, Expanding Its Primary Purpose, and for Other Purposes,' also provides that:
Section 7. The Board of Directors shall provide for an organizational structure and staffing pattern for officers and employees of the Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines (TIDCORP) and upon recommendation of its President, appoint and fix their remuneration, emoluments and fringe benefits: Provided, that the Board shall have exclusive and final authority to appoint, promote, transfer, assign and re-assign personnel of the TIDCORP, any provision of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding.
All positions in TIDCORP shall be governed by a compensation and position classification system and qualification standards approved by TIDCORP's Board of Directors based on a comprehensive job analysis and audit of actual duties and responsibilities. The compensation plan shall be comparable with the prevailing compensation plans in the private sector and shall be subject to periodic review by the Board no more than once every four (4) years without prejudice to yearly merit reviews or increases based on productivity and profitability. TIDCORP shall be exempt from existing laws, rules and regulations on compensation, position classification and qualification standards. It shall, however, endeavor to make the system to conform as closely as possible to the principles and modes provided in Republic Act No. 6758. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Based on the foregoing, the TIDCORP Board adopted resolutions approving the grant of corporate guaranty, grocery subsidy, and anniversary bonus, among others, to its board members. 11
On July 13, 2012, without a prior notice of suspension, COA Audit Team Leader Gloria O. Lacson and Supervising Auditor Teodora M. Lacerna issued the aforementioned ND and held petitioners liable for the amount of P4,539,835.02 (disallowed amount) for the period of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010. 12 They cited Section 8, Article IX-B of the Philippine Constitution as basis, which states that:
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, x x x
It was opined that since petitioners received the disallowed amount as ex-officio TIDCORP Board members, said amount constitutes double compensation which is prohibited under the Constitution.
TIDCORP, on behalf of its directors, officers, and employees who were held liable, thus appealed the ND, arguing that the disallowed amount was duly authorized by existing laws and was received in good faith. TIDCORP also argued that the ND was issued without the observance of procedural due process. 13
In its Decision 14 dated October 7, 2015, the COA-CGS affirmed the ND and denied the appeal for lack of merit. The CGS cited the case of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary (Civil Liberties Union), 15 where it was ruled that an official has no right to receive compensation for his services in his ex-officio position, as these services are already paid for by the compensation attached to his principal office. 16 The case of Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Commission on Audit17 was also cited, where it was held that:
x x x the specification of compensation and limitation of the amount of compensation in a statute indicate that Board members are entitled only to the per diem authorized by law and no other. 18 (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
According to the COA-CGS, petitioners should return the disallowed amounts to the government as their receipt thereof constituted unjust enrichment. 19 Further, the COA-CGS noted that petitioners failed to comply with Memorandum Order (MO) No. 20, series of 2001, which required the President's prior approval before any increase in benefits could take effect. 20 Lastly, it was held that petitioners were afforded the opportunity to be heard through their appeal memorandum, and thus, could not invoke lack of procedural due process. 21
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for review with the COA, which the latter denied in its Decision 22 dated January 30, 2019. The COA pointed out that 182 days had already lapsed from the time petitioners received the ND, hence, the petition was filed late or beyond the six (6)-month appeal period (180 days) per Section 48 of P.D. No. 1445, which states that:
Section 48. Appeal from Decision of Auditors. — Any person aggrieved by the decision of an auditor of any government agency in the settlement of an account or claim may within six months from receipt of a copy of the decision appeal in writing to the Commission. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The COA also held that petitioners' arguments were mere rehash of the points raised in petitioners' appeal memorandum. 23
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the COA in its Resolution 24 dated January 29, 2020 on the ground, among others, that petitioners' motion was a mere rehash of their previous arguments. 25 On petitioners' contention that the Civil Liberties Union doctrine against double compensation is inapplicable to them since they are not Cabinet members, 26 the COA pointed out that in National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit, 27 appointive officials below the rank of Assistant Secretary were prohibited from collecting extra compensation for their ex-officio positions, 28 hence, the prohibition extends not only to Cabinet members but also to government employees other than Cabinet members. 29
Hence, this petition before this Court.
Petitioners claim that COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in upholding the disallowance on the following grounds: (1) that the disallowance contravened law and jurisprudence as (a) the disallowed amount does not constitute additional compensation prohibited under the constitution; (b) the COA's reliance on the Civil Liberties Union case is misplaced; (c) Section 8 of R.A. No. 10149, or the 'GOCC Governance Act of 2011,' invoked by the COA was passed after the emoluments had already been granted; (d) the assailed decision and resolution violated petitioners' right to procedural due process; and (2) that petitioners should be exonerated from liability for the disallowed amount, since they received such in good faith. 30
In its Comment 31 dated June 7, 2021, respondent claimed that: (1) the ND was in consonance with prevailing laws and jurisprudence; (2) no specific statute authorized TIDCORP to grant the disallowed benefits; (3) TIDCORP's power and authority to fix its personnel's compensation is not absolute; (4) petitioners' right to procedural due process was not violated; and (5) petitioners cannot excuse themselves from returning the amounts unduly disbursed to them. 32
We deny the petition.
Petitioners insist that the disallowed amount — consisting of subsidies, bonuses, and other additional monetary benefits — does not violate the prohibition against double compensation, since it was specifically authorized by law. 33 However, Section 13 of P.D. No. 1080 only specifically provides for a per diem amount:
Section 13. Remuneration of Members for Attending Meetings of the Board. — The members of the Board or their respective alternates, except the President of the Corporation, shall receive a per diem of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) for every Board meeting attended. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Petitioners argue that since the foregoing provision did not expressly prohibit the grant of other benefits, the Court should not construe it restrictively. 34 This argument fails, pursuant to the basic rules of construction that the express mention of one thing excludes all others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius), and that a thing omitted must have been omitted intentionally (casus omissus pro omisso habendus est). 35 Since P.D. No. 1080 only specifically authorized the payment of per diem to board members, then only such could be granted. This is in keeping with the principle that the power of any corporation created by special law to adopt a compensation scheme is limited by the specific provisions in the legislative act. 36
Further, since petitioners merely served in an ex-officio capacity in the Board, it follows that they have no right to receive additional compensation or benefits for it, such being part and parcel of their principal office. 37 To rule otherwise would contravene the constitutional proscription against double compensation.
Petitioners repeatedly argue that the Civil Liberties Union case is inapplicable, since they are not Cabinet members. 38 however, this Court, in a long line of cases, has already applied the double compensation prohibition to positions outside the Cabinet. 39 Thus, this argument likewise fails.
We cannot also uphold petitioners' argument that they were not accorded procedural due process as they have repeatedly been given an opportunity to argue their case before the COA and this Court. This satisfies the essence of due process which is the fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard or to explain one's side. 40
Lastly, petitioners cannot invoke good faith as an excuse from returning the disallowed amount. The recent landmark case of Madera v. Commission on Audit41 provides that:
In the ultimate analysis, the Court, through these new precedents, has returned to the basic premise that the responsibility to return is a civil obligation to which fundamental civil law principles, such as unjust enrichment and solutio indebiti apply regardless of the food faith of passive recipients.This, as well, is the foundation of the rules of return that the Court now promulgates.42 (Emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
Moreover, the Court wishes to emphasize that petitioners were not mere passive recipients of the disallowed amount, as they participated in the approval thereof through resolutions passed by the TIDCORP Board. As stated in the COA-CGS October 7, 2015 Decision:
On various occasions, the TIDCORP's BOD approved43 the following Board Resolutions increasing the salary of its officers and employees without the required approval from the President. 44 x x x (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Their bad faith is bolstered by the fact that they approved the aforementioned resolutions without the President's approval, contrary to MO No. 20, series of 2001, which states that:
Section 3. Any increase in salary or compensation of GOCCs/GFIs that are not in accordance with the SSL shall be subject to the approval of the President.
Bad faith is evinced by the conscious doing of a wrong, which applies in this case as petitioners knowingly passed the resolutions without the President's approval, when a prior memorandum was already issued requiring such.
Thus, this Court gives no weight to petitioners' defenses and finds them liable for the disallowed amount.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision No. 2019-001 dated January 30, 2019 and Resolution No. 2020-177 dated January 29, 2020 of the COA are hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioners are hereby held solidarily liable as approving officers and recipients of the disallowed amount, and are directed to settle the said amount of P4,539,835.02 immediately." (46)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 10-44.
2. Id. at 108-110.
3. Id. at 73-84; penned by Cluster Director Mary S. Adelino.
4. Id. at 85-88; penned by Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo and Commissioners Jose A. Fabia and Roland C. Bondoc.
5. Id. at 140-154.
6. Id. at 89-94; penned by Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo and Commissioners Jose A. Fabia and Roland C. Pondoc.
7. Id. at 155-169.
8. Id. at 15.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 14.
11. Rollo, pp. 16-17.
12. Id. at 108-110.
13. Id. at 18.
14. Id. at 73-84.
15. 272 Phil. 147, 168 (1991).
16. Id.
17. 599 Phil. 455 (2009).
18. Id. at 467.
19. Rollo, p. 83, citing Government Service Insurance System v. Commission on Audit, 694 Phil. 518, 525 (2012).
20. Id. at 80.
21. Id. at 83.
22. Id. at 85-88.
23. Id. at 86.
24. Id. at 89-94.
25. Id. at 90.
26. Id. at 92.
27. 481 Phil. 279 (2004).
28. Rollo, pp. 92-93.
29. Id. at 93.
30. Id. at 20-39.
31. Id. at 182-210.
32. Id. at 188-207.
33. Id. at 22.
34. Id. at 30.
35. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit (Notice), G.R. No. 224288, September 15, 2020.
36. Id.
37. Id.
38. Rollo, pp. 32-33.
39. Philippine Mining Development Corporation v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 245273, July 27, 2021; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, supra note 35; Philippine Health Insurance Corporation v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 222838, September 4, 2018.
40. Philippine Mining Development Corporation v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 245273, July 27, 2021.
41. G.R. No. 244128, September 8, 2020.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. Rollo, p. 47.