Manila Bulletin
Philippines
COA orders LWUA officials to return P26-M received in 2009 for 'miscellaneous expenses'
Philippines
COA orders LWUA officials to return P26-M received in 2009 for 'miscellaneous expenses'
COA orders LWUA officials to return P26-M received in 2009 for 'miscellaneous expenses'
Published Jan 6, 2020 12:00 am
By Ben Rosario
The Commission on Audit (COA) has ordered former and incumbent officials of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) to return to government some P25.26 million in extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (EME) they received in 2009.
Commission on Audit (MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
The COA-Commission Proper (COA-CP) issued the order after issuing a final ruling on issuance of Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 11-04-CF covering the payment that rejected LWUA’s disbursement of the EME granted by the water agency to its officials in 2009.
In a ruling released recently, the COA-CP junked a Petition for Review filed by Rebecca Barbo and Edwin Ruiz who sought a reconsideration of the previous decision that upheld the issuance of the ND on Sept. 20, 2011.
COA officials pointed out that the certification issued to support the EME disbursements cannot be properly considered a supporting document. Barbo and Ruiz filed an appeal five years later, with the COA-CP noting that the filing was filed outside the prescribed period.
“Based on the foregoing, petitioner had already exhausted the reglamentary period of six months or 180 days to file the Petition for Review under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1445,” the COA-CP ruled.
The panel headed by Chairman Michael Aguinaldo said it can no longer entertain the petition for review because the decision had already attained finality. “Having attained finality, the assailed decision is immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect.”
COA cited the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Guido-Enriquez vs. Victorino that declared that “any act which violates” the said principle must “immediately be struck down.”
“Moreover, even if this Commission decides the case on its merit, the petition still fails,” the ruling states.
The Commission pointed out that the “certification” submitted by recipients of the EME to justify the disbursements “cannot be properly considered as a supporting document” as described under COA Circular No. 2006-01.
“Accordingly, since petitioners’ reimbursement claims were solely supported by this ‘certification’, the COA properly disallowed said claims for failure to comply with COA Circular No. 2006-001,” the COA-CP said.
Commission on Audit (MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
The COA-Commission Proper (COA-CP) issued the order after issuing a final ruling on issuance of Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 11-04-CF covering the payment that rejected LWUA’s disbursement of the EME granted by the water agency to its officials in 2009.
In a ruling released recently, the COA-CP junked a Petition for Review filed by Rebecca Barbo and Edwin Ruiz who sought a reconsideration of the previous decision that upheld the issuance of the ND on Sept. 20, 2011.
COA officials pointed out that the certification issued to support the EME disbursements cannot be properly considered a supporting document. Barbo and Ruiz filed an appeal five years later, with the COA-CP noting that the filing was filed outside the prescribed period.
“Based on the foregoing, petitioner had already exhausted the reglamentary period of six months or 180 days to file the Petition for Review under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1445,” the COA-CP ruled.
The panel headed by Chairman Michael Aguinaldo said it can no longer entertain the petition for review because the decision had already attained finality. “Having attained finality, the assailed decision is immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect.”
COA cited the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Guido-Enriquez vs. Victorino that declared that “any act which violates” the said principle must “immediately be struck down.”
“Moreover, even if this Commission decides the case on its merit, the petition still fails,” the ruling states.
The Commission pointed out that the “certification” submitted by recipients of the EME to justify the disbursements “cannot be properly considered as a supporting document” as described under COA Circular No. 2006-01.
“Accordingly, since petitioners’ reimbursement claims were solely supported by this ‘certification’, the COA properly disallowed said claims for failure to comply with COA Circular No. 2006-001,” the COA-CP said.