G.R. No.

103309

November 27, 1992

BENITO M. BUSTAMANTE petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSIONER ON AUDIT, and MARTHA ROXANA T. CABURIAN, respondents.

CAMPOS, JR. J.:

FACTS: Petitioner is the Regional Legal Counsel of the National Power Corporation (NPC) for the Northern
Luzon Regional Center covering the provinces of Rizal up to Batanes. As such he was issued a government
vehicle with plate number SCC 387. Pursuant to NPC policy as reflected in the Board Resolution No. 81-95
authorizing the monthly disbursement of transportation allowance, the petitioner, in addition to the use of
government vehicle, claimed his transportation allowance for the month of January 1989. On May 31, 1990,
the petitioner received an Auditor's Notice to Person Liable dated April 17, 1990 from respondent Regional
Auditor Martha Roxana Caburian disallowing P1,250.00 representing aforesaid transportation allowance. In a
letter to the said Regional Auditor dated June 18, 1990, the petitioner moved for reconsideration of the
disallowance of the claim for transportation allowance. The Regional Auditor denied petitioner's motion in a
letter dated June 27, 1990. Petitioner appealed this denial to the Commission on Audit at Quezon City, which
denied do due course. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not, the COA had validly exercise its power under Art 9 Section 2 of the Constitution.
RULING: Yes. The Court held that the factual finding of the Commission that petitioner was indeed assigned
a government, vehicle is conclusive upon this Court. The petitioner faults respondent Regional Auditor for
relying on her serious doubts as to the nature of the use of the vehicle assigned to petitioner as basis for the
disallowance. However, it was ruled that such issue is immaterial in the case at bar for the COA circular, in
prohibiting the use of motor vehicles by officials receiving transportation allowance, is categorical. The use of
government motor vehicle and the claim for transportation allowance are mutually exclusive. It is on this
basis that the P1,250.00 transportation allowance was disallowed. Thus petition is dismissed.

G.R. No. L-61676

October 18, 1982

EDITHA B. SALIGUMBA, petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND LEONARDO ESTELLA, respondents.
RESOLUTION

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

FACTS: This is a petition to review the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA) in Administrative Case
No. 81-525 for disgraceful and immoral conduct. On the basis of the sworn complaint of Editha Saligumba,
the COA instituted the administrative case against Leonardo Estella, Auditing Examiner III, in the Auditor's
Office of Misamis Occidental. The charge was that the respondent raped Editha Saligumba on several
occasions. On April 12, 1982, the COA rendered a decision, due to insufficient evidence, the instant charge
is dropped. However, petitioner contends that there are vital issues that needs of resolution hence this case.
ISSUE: Whether or not COA committed grave abuse of discretion in dropping the case.

RULING: The petition has to be dismissed for the following reasons:

1.
Our power to review COA decisions refers to money matters and not to administrative cases
involving the discipline of its personnel.
2.
Even assuming that We have jurisdiction to review decisions on administrative matters as mentioned
above, We can not do so on factual issues; Our power to review is limited to legal issues.
G.R. No. 98355 March 2, 1994
HON. TOMAS R, OSMEA, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND HONORABLE EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO, respondents.
Office of the City Attorney for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.

NOCON, J.:
Sometime in 1985 the City of Cebu decided to construct a modern abattoir. For this project, the City
Treasurer, Ricardo Pestano, issued a certificate of availability of funds dated April 30, 1985, in the amount of
(P5,419,180.00), specifically "for the construction of Cebu City Abbatoir (sic)." H. Franco Construction
Company, Inc. (HFCCI) was awarded to do the construction of the abattoir. However on March 13, 1986,
Sen. John H. Osmea, then Officer-In-Charge of the City of Cebu, ordered the suspension of the project and
review of the contract by the COA. He also wrote HFCCI asking them to account for the value of their
progress. On April 24, 1986, HFCCI claimed the amount of P2,142,964.29 as the value of the work
accomplished. Unable to collect the said amount after so many demands, HFCCI instituted a civil action, 3
dated May 21, 1987 against the City of Cebu, for recovery of investment and damages.
In its answer dated June 5, 1987, the City of Cebu, while admitting having entered into a contract with
HFCCI, alleged that the contract it entered into was null and void as declared by the Commission on Audit in
its 2nd Indorsement dated September 4, 1986. Therefore whatever amount is due to HFCCI is to the sole
liability of the officer or officers who entered into the said contract. The parties entered in a compromise
agreement to the effect that as a full and final settlement to the claim of HFCCI, the City of Cebu shall pay
the amount of (P1,500,000.00. The trial court's judgment based on the compromise agreement was referred
to the COA's Regional Director, who in turn indorsed the same to the Chairman of the COA. In its 3rd
Indorsement dated May 2, 1989, the COA ruled that the construction of abattoir was void and since no
appeal was taken it became final. Under the circumstances, this Commission concurs in the view expressed
by that Office that the expenditure involved would be the personal liability of the officer directly responsible
for its incurrence (Sec. 103, P.D. No. 1445).
Petitioner's request for reconsideration of the above ruling was denied in COA's 5th Indorsement dated
January 23, 1991, 7 hence this petition,
ISSUE: Whether or not the COA acted with grave abuse of discretion.
RULING: No. The Court ruled that Commission on Audit has the power, authority and duty to examine, audit
and settle all accounts pertaining to revenue and receipts of and expenditures or uses of funds and property,
owned of held in trust by, or pertaining to, the government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities. The City of Cebu relied on the above pronouncement and interposed the same as its
affirmative defense, so much so that petitioner cannot now assert that it was void having been issued in
excess of COA's jurisdiction. A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court or an administrative body to
secure affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question that same jurisdiction. It is not right for a party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a
court in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to afterwards deny the same jurisdiction to escape
a penalty. Thus petition is dismissed.