Galindo vs. Commission on Audit

Decisions of the Commission on Audit in administrative disciplinary cases are not reviewable by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 64; the proper remedy is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission, as provided by the Administrative Code of 1987.

The case arose from a long-standing practice within the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) of granting bonuses, allowances, and other benefits to personnel of the Commission on Audit (COA) assigned to audit it. This practice was brought to the attention of the COA Chairman through a letter from the MWSS Administrator, which detailed how unrecorded checks were being issued from cash advances to pay these benefits, bypassing usual accounting procedures. This prompted the COA to form a fact-finding investigation team, which ultimately led to the filing of administrative charges against the petitioners and other COA personnel involved.

• On June 2, 2008, the MWSS Administrator informed the COA Chairman about unrecorded checks related to the cash advances of MWSS Supervising Cashier Iris C. Mendoza, which were used to pay bonuses and benefits to COA personnel assigned to MWSS (COA-MWSS).
• A COA investigation revealed that from 2005 to 2007, COA-MWSS personnel received millions of pesos in cash from Mendoza's advances, and that a similar practice occurred from 1999 to 2003.
• The payments were facilitated through an irregular procedure where a former COA employee, Carmelita Yabut, would approach Mendoza with pre-signed Office Orders to prepare disbursement vouchers and checks, which were then given to COA personnel for signing by the MWSS Administrator.
• After encashment, the entire amount was given to COA personnel, who were also responsible for liquidating the cash advances.
• Petitioners Galindo and Pinto, along with other COA-MWSS staff, also availed of a Car Assistance Plan (CAP) from the MWSS Employees Welfare Fund (MEWF), under which MEWF paid for 60% of the vehicle's purchase price, constituting a fringe benefit.
• The COA found that Pinto acknowledged receiving P385,000.00, P428,745.00, and P428,745.00, while Galindo received P428,745.00, based on acknowledgment receipts prepared by Mendoza.
• Both were also ordered to refund the fringe benefits from the car plan: P358,004.03 for Galindo and P300,000.00 for Pinto.

• The COA erred in ruling that the 60% subsidy paid by the MEWF for their car loans constituted a prohibited fringe benefit under COA Memorandum No. 89-584 and Section 18 of R.A. 6758.
• The prosecution failed to establish the required quantum of evidence (substantial evidence) because it relied on private documents, such as acknowledgment receipts, without sufficient proof of their due execution and genuineness.
• The COA erred in ruling that the circumstances surrounding the cash advances of Ms. Mendoza were deemed established simply because they were not controverted.
• The COA erred in concluding that the petitioners actually received the bonuses and other benefits from the cash advances of Ms. Mendoza.

• The allegations against the petitioners were supported by substantial evidence, which is the required quantum of proof in administrative cases.
• The documentary evidence, including public documents and the authenticated acknowledgment receipts, was admissible and sufficient to establish petitioners' liability.
• The straightforward testimony of MWSS Supervising Cashier Iris Mendoza sufficiently established that petitioners were among the recipients of the illegal bonuses and benefits.
• The funds managed by the MEWF were public funds, and the 60% car loan subsidy constituted a prohibited fringe benefit for COA personnel under existing laws and regulations.
• The receipt of such unauthorized bonuses and benefits from an audited agency constitutes Grave Misconduct.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 is the proper remedy to challenge a decision of the COA in an administrative disciplinary case.
  • Whether the petition was filed within the reglementary period.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding petitioners guilty of Grave Misconduct for receiving unauthorized benefits from MWSS.

• Procedural:
  • No, the petition is dismissed for being the wrong remedy. The Court held that in administrative disciplinary cases decided by the COA, the proper recourse is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission, not a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Court's power to review COA decisions under Rule 64 pertains to money matters, not the discipline of its personnel. Furthermore, the petition was filed 84 days late, well beyond the reglementary period, rendering the COA's decision final and executory.
• Substantive:
  • No, the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the COA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, which is the required quantum of proof in administrative cases. The evidence, including Mendoza's testimony and the various documents presented, was sufficient for a reasonable mind to conclude that petitioners received the unauthorized benefits. The act of receiving such emoluments from an audited agency is a clear violation of Section 18 of R.A. No. 6758, which is designed to preserve the independence and integrity of the COA.

• Proper Remedy for COA Administrative Decisions — The Supreme Court's power to review COA decisions under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court is limited to money matters and does not extend to administrative cases involving the discipline of its personnel. The proper remedy for an adverse decision in such administrative cases is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission as mandated by the Administrative Code of 1987.
• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Cases — This doctrine requires only that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In this case, the Court held that the testimony of the MWSS cashier, along with acknowledgment receipts and other documents, met this standard to prove that petitioners received the disallowed benefits.
• Prohibition on Additional Compensation for COA Personnel — Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6758 explicitly prohibits COA officials and employees from receiving salaries, honoraria, bonuses, allowances, or other emoluments from any government entity they audit. This rule is intended to preserve the independence and integrity of the COA. The Court applied this doctrine to affirm that the benefits received by the petitioners from MWSS were illegal.

• "To be able [to] properly perform their constitutional mandate, COA officials need to be insulated from unwarranted influences, so that they can act with independence and integrity. x x x. The removal of the temptation and enticement the extra emoluments may provide is designed to be an effective way of vigorously and aggressively enforcing the Constitutional provision mandating the COA to prevent or disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties."

• Nacion v. Commission on Audit — This case was cited as it was an offshoot of the same FAIO-LSS investigation involving another COA-MWSS officer. The Court in Nacion similarly dismissed the petition and underscored the strict prohibition under R.A. No. 6758 against COA personnel receiving additional compensation from the agency they audit.
• Saligumba v. Commission on Audit — This case was referenced to support the procedural ruling that the Supreme Court's power to review COA decisions is limited to money matters and not administrative cases involving personnel discipline, which must be appealed to the Civil Service Commission.

• Section 18, Republic Act No. 6758 (Salary Standardization Law) — This was the primary substantive law applied, which prohibits COA personnel from receiving any form of additional compensation or benefits from the government entities they are assigned to audit.
• Section 7, Article IX-A, 1987 Constitution — This provision, which allows decisions of Constitutional Commissions to be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari, was held to be a general rule that is superseded by the specific law (Administrative Code of 1987) governing administrative disciplinary appeals.
• Section 47, Administrative Code of 1987 — This section grants the Civil Service Commission appellate jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary cases where the penalty imposed is suspension for more than thirty days, which was the basis for the Court's ruling on the proper remedy.
• Rule 64, Rules of Court — The Court explained that this rule, governing the review of judgments of the COA and COMELEC, was improperly invoked by the petitioners as it does not apply to administrative disciplinary cases of the COA.