Casibang v. Philippine Tobacco Administration
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Amelia C. Casibang, a permanent budget examiner at the Philippine Tobacco Administration (PTA), had her position abolished in 1970 due to lack of funds and work, following a reduction in the PTA's appropriation. She was initially employed by the PTA in 1959 and promoted to budget examiner in 1964. 2. Procedural History: Casibang's initial complaint to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) regarding the abolition was sustained in 1973. However, four years later, the CSC reversed its decision and ordered the PTA to reinstate her, which it did effective October 1, 1977. She then claimed back salaries for the period of her separation. While the PTA board and CSC initially approved her claim, the PTA later sought to revoke the ruling. The Government Corporate Counsel opined that she might be entitled to back salaries for a maximum of three years. Pursuant to an agreement, she was paid P12,323.46 as net back salaries for three years. The CSC reiterated its view for full payment, but the Commission on Audit (COA), in Opinion No. 311 dated January 29, 1981, ruled that her back salaries could not be charged against PTA funds. The COA denied her motion for reconsideration and subsequently questioned the payment of three years' back salaries, prompting the PTA to request a refund. 3. The Petition: Fifty-three days after receiving notice of the COA's decision, Casibang filed an instant petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to declare the COA's opinions void. The PTA raised the preliminary issue of timeliness, arguing that the petition was filed out of time, as Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 requires appeals from COA decisions to this Court within a thirty-day period. The petition was allegedly given due course erroneously due to a misrepresentation of the date of receipt of the decision, which was not refuted by the petitioner. The PTA argued that the remedy of mandamus was also unavailing as the COA's duty was not ministerial.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by Amelia C. Casibang was filed within the reglementary period. Whether Casibang is entitled to full back salaries from February 16, 1970, to September 30, 1977, and whether the opinions of the Commission on Audit declaring that Casibang's back salaries could not be charged against PTA funds and questioning the payment of three years' back salaries are void.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the petition for certiorari was filed out of time and therefore should not have been entertained. The Court also found that the remedy of mandamus was unavailing as the COA's duty to pass upon the petitioner's claim was not ministerial.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: The Supreme Court held that Casibang filed her petition for certiorari fifty-three (53) days after receiving notice of the Commission on Audit's decision. Section 50 of the Government Auditing Code, Presidential Decree No. 1445, explicitly requires that decisions of the COA may be appealed to the Supreme Court within the reglementary thirty-day period from notice of the decision. Therefore, the petition was filed out of time and should not have been given due course. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had misrepresented the date of receipt of the decision, an error that was not refuted by the petitioner who did not file a memorandum. The Court reiterated the established jurisprudence that failure to appeal the decision of the Auditor General within the thirty-day period makes the decision final and bars any action for its review, citing Mañgonon v. Republic and Lacson v. Auditor General. The Court emphasized that the petition was erroneously given due course due to this misrepresentation regarding the date of receipt. On the entitlement to full back salaries and the validity of COA opinions: While the Court did not directly rule on the merits of entitlement to full back salaries due to the procedural defect, it implicitly affirmed the COA's authority to rule on the matter. The petition sought to declare the COA opinions void, but the dismissal of the petition on procedural grounds meant the COA's ruling on the non-chargeability of back salaries against PTA funds and the questioning of the three years' payment stood. The Court also noted that the remedy of mandamus was unavailing because the COA's duty to pass upon petitioner's claim was not ministerial, meaning it involved the exercise of discretion and judgment, not a simple, imperative obligation. The PTA's position that the three years' payment was legal but additional claims should be denied was also implicitly set aside by the dismissal of the petition challenging the COA's authority.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari filed fifty-three days after notice of the Commission on Audit's decision is filed out of time and should not have been entertained, as decisions of the COA must be appealed within the reglementary thirty-day period from notice thereof.