Bustamante v. Commissioner on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the disallowance of a P1,250.00 transportation allowance claimed by Benito M. Bustamante, the Regional Legal Counsel of the National Power Corporation (NPC) for Northern Luzon, for the month of January 1989. Bustamante, who was provided with a government vehicle, also claimed a transportation allowance based on an NPC policy (Board Resolution No. 81-95). This claim was disallowed by Regional Auditor Martha Roxana Caburian. Procedural History: Following the disallowance by Regional Auditor Caburian, Bustamante sought reconsideration, which was denied. He then appealed this denial to the Commissioner on Audit (COA). The COA also denied his appeal, refusing to give it due course. This denial by the COA led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: This case is a petition for certiorari with Preliminary Injunction filed by Benito M. Bustamante. He seeks to annul the decision of the Commissioner on Audit that denied due course to his appeal. The core issue raised is whether the COA's denial of due course to the appeal constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Bustamante argues that COA Circular No. 75-6, which prohibits officials provided with transportation allowances from using government vehicles, should not apply to the NPC, and that NPC policy allows for both the use of a government vehicle and the claim for transportation allowance. He also contends that the COA, in disallowing the claim, usurped the functions of the NPC Board of Directors.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Audit (COA) committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the petitioner's transportation allowance while he was simultaneously provided with a government vehicle.
Ruling
The instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. With costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Commission on Audit (COA) did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Under the 1973 Constitution (Article XII-D, Section 2), which was applicable at the time of the circular's promulgation, the COA has the power to examine, audit, and settle accounts of all government agencies and instrumentalities, including Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) like the National Power Corporation (NPC). Pursuant to this power, COA issued Circular No. 75-6, which explicitly prohibits officials provided with government vehicles from receiving transportation allowances. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the NPC Board's resolution could override COA's constitutional mandate, stating that such a conclusion would render the COA inutile. The Court emphasized that the use of a government motor vehicle and the claim for a transportation allowance are mutually exclusive. Therefore, the disallowance was a valid exercise of COA's duty to prevent irregular or excessive expenditures of government funds, and the factual finding that petitioner had a vehicle was conclusive.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Audit (COA) possesses the constitutional mandate to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the expenditures or uses of funds and property owned or held in trust by the Government, including Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs). This authority includes the power to promulgate accounting and auditing rules to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expenditures. Consequently, COA regulations prohibiting the simultaneous use of a government vehicle and the receipt of a transportation allowance are valid and binding, even against conflicting board resolutions of a GOCC.