Magaso v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 2004, Congressman Hussin U. Amin identified the Municipality of Panglima Tahil, Sulu, as a recipient of P3,000,000.00 from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) for medical supplies. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released the funds to the Department of Health (DOH) Regional Field Office IX via a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed between the DOH Regional Director and Mayor Nedra Burahan. During the 2004 election period, specifically on May 7, 2004, Check No. 70241 was issued to the Municipality. A Special Audit Team (SAT) later found that the transaction violated Section 261(w) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), which prohibits the issuance of treasury warrants or similar devices 45 days before a regular election. Procedural History: The SAT issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 07-022-101 (04) on March 14, 2007, holding several officials liable, including Petitioner Violeta Magaso (Accountant III) for certifying Box 'B' of the Disbursement Voucher (DV). Magaso and the Chief Administrative Officer requested reconsideration, arguing their duties were ministerial and they relied on the Mayor's representations. The Commission on Audit (COA) Legal Services Sector (LSS) denied the request in Decision No. 2009-163, ruling their participation was material to the consummation of the transaction. A Notice of Finality was issued in 2015, which Magaso claimed was her first notice of the adverse decision. The Petition: Magaso filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65. She argued that: (1) she should not be liable as her role was limited to certifying fund availability and document completeness; (2) she was denied due process because she did not receive the 2009 Decision until 2015; and (3) the COA decision failed to distinctly state the facts and law as required by the Constitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Audit (COA) committed grave abuse of discretion in holding Magaso liable for the disallowed P3,000,000.00 disbursement. Whether Magaso's right to due process was violated by the alleged non-receipt of the 2009 Decision and the subsequent issuance of the Notice of Finality. Whether the Commission on Audit (COA) Decision violated Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution regarding the requirement to state facts and law.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Commission on Audit in Legal Services Sector No. 2009-163 dated 31 March 2009 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the Commission on Audit (COA) did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 261(w)(b) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), the issuance of any device undertaking future delivery of money chargeable against public funds during the 45-day period preceding a regular election is prohibited. The check issued on May 7, 2004, fell within this prohibited period. Magaso, as Accountant III, certified Box 'B' of the Disbursement Voucher (DV), attesting that supporting documents were 'complete and proper.' The Court emphasized that this duty is not ministerial; signatories are expected to review documents and raise questions on the legality of the expenditure. Magaso's failure to question a disbursement made during an election ban, especially when the check was issued directly to a Mayor, constituted gross negligence, which negates the presumption of good faith. On Issue 2: Regarding the due process claim, the Court noted that while the 2009 Decision might not have attained finality due to the lack of proof of service to Magaso, the Petition was still resolvable on the merits. The Court held that Magaso was not the proper party to raise due process violations on behalf of other signatories who were allegedly not notified. Her accountability is personal and based on her actual participation in the transaction. Furthermore, under Section 43 of the Administrative Code of 1987, the liability of public officers for illegal expenditures is solidary. Since she was able to file the present Petition and argue her case, the essence of due process—the opportunity to be heard—was satisfied. On Issue 3: The Court found no violation of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution. Although the Commission on Audit (COA) decision was concise, it adequately covered the relevant facts and law. It cited Section 19 of the Manual for Certificate of Settlement and Balances and explained that Magaso's signature was material and significant to the consummation of the transaction. The Constitutional requirement is met as long as the decision informs the parties of the factual and legal reasons for the conclusion, allowing the losing party to pinpoint possible errors for review. The brevity of a decision does not equate to a lack of due process if the reasoning is clearly discernible.
Main Doctrine
Public officers who certify the necessity, legality, and availability of funds, or the adequacy of documents involving the expenditure of government funds, are liable according to their respective certifications. The duty of an accountant in certifying that supporting documents are 'complete and proper' is not ministerial; they are expected to review the documents and raise questions on the legality or regularity of the transaction. A certification made in palpable disregard of laws, such as the prohibition against disbursements during the election period under the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), amounts to gross negligence which overcomes the presumption of good faith. Consequently, the responsible officers who facilitate such transactions are held solidarily liable for the disallowed amounts.