Ablong v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 2008, the Board of Regents of the Negros Oriental State University (NORSU) authorized the grant of Economic Relief Allowance (ERA) to its personnel, amounts of P25,000.00 and P30,000.00 being disbursed in 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. The petitioners, all teachers at NORSU, received these allowances. Subsequently, the Commission on Audit (COA) Audit Team issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) for these ERA payments, citing lack of presidential approval and improper debiting from tuition fees. The NDs were served to the NORSU Acting Chief Accountant, but not directly to the individual petitioners. Procedural History: Following the issuance of the NDs, no appeals were filed, leading to Notices of Finality of Decision and Orders of Execution. Petitioner Delilah J. Ablong, on behalf of herself and her colleagues, wrote to the COA Regional Director requesting reconsideration, asserting they were unaware of the disallowance until late 2011. The Regional Director denied this request, citing the finality of the disallowances and COA Circular No. 2009-006. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review with the COA Proper, which was dismissed for being an improper remedy and for being filed beyond the reglementary period. The COA En Banc subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners seek certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the COA's dismissal of their petition for review and denial of their motion for reconsideration. They argue that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion by upholding the disallowances and execution orders despite the lack of actual service of the NDs to them, thereby violating their right to due process. They also contend that their receipt of the ERA was in good faith. The COA counters that service to the accountant constituted constructive notice to all payees and that the petitioners were aware of the illegality of the grant through Audit Observation Memoranda.
Issue(s)
Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in upholding the Notices of Finality of Decision and Orders of Execution despite the alleged lack of actual service of the Notices of Disallowance to the petitioners. Whether the petitioners acted in good faith in receiving the Economic Relief Allowance, and the legality of the ERA.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the COA's decision and resolution, and remanded the case to the COA for resolution of the petitioners' appeal on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lack of actual service and due process: The Court found merit in the petition. It reiterated the policy of sustaining COA decisions unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that it is undisputed that the petitioners were not informed of the NDs and only learned of the disallowance in late 2011. The COA's argument that service to the accountant constituted constructive notice to all payees under Section 12.1 of COA Circular No. 2009-006 was found unpersuasive because the accountant did not inform the petitioners. The Court emphasized that Section 10.2 of COA Circular No. 2009-006 categorically requires service of the ND to all persons liable. The alleged refusal of the Supervising Auditor to furnish copies of the NDs to the liable individuals further supported the claim of denial of due process. The Court held that the lack of notice violated the petitioners' fundamental right to due process, as it denied them the opportunity to be heard and for their defenses to be considered. Violation of due process rights is a jurisdictional defect, rendering any decision or judgment fatally defective. On the issue of good faith and legality of ERA: While the Court did not directly rule on the merits of the good faith claim in the dispositive portion, the remand for resolution of the appeal on the merits implies that the issue of good faith, along with the legality of the ERA, will be addressed by the COA. The Court's primary focus was on the procedural infirmity of the COA's decision due to the violation of due process. The Court acknowledged that the petitioners were not part of the decision-making process and received the ERA assuming its legality, but the procedural defect of lack of notice overshadowed this aspect in the initial review by the Supreme Court.
Main Doctrine
A decision or judgment rendered in violation of a party-litigant's right to due process is fatally defective and must be set aside. The right to due process is satisfied only if a party is properly notified of the allegations against him or her and is given an opportunity to defend himself or herself.