4/25/2017 G.R.No.

204869

TodayisMonday,April24,2017

CustomSearch

TESDAv.THECOMMISSIONONAUDIT,G.R.No.204869,March11,2014
Decision,Carpio[J]
ConcurringandDissentingOpinion,Brion[J]

ENBANC

March11,2014

G.R.No.204869

TECHNICALEDUCATIONANDSKILLSDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY(TESDA),Petitioner,
vs.
THECOMMISSIONONAUDIT,CHAIRPERSONMA.GRACIAM.PULIDOTAN,COMMISSIONERJUANITOG.
ESPINO,JR.,andCOMMISSIONERHEIDIL.MENDOZA,Respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

This is a petition for certiorari1 with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunctiontoannulDecisionNo.20122102oftheCommissiononAudit(COA).TheCOAdisallowedpaymentsof
Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) by the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA)toitsofficials.

TheFacts

Upon post audit, the TESDA audit team leader discovered that for the calendar years 20042007, TESDA paid
EMEtwiceeachyeartoitsofficialsfromtwosources:(1)theGeneralFundforlocallyfundedprojects,and(2)the
TechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentProject(TESDP)Fundfortheforeignassistedprojects.Thepayment
of EME was authorized under the General Provisions of the General Appropriations Acts of 2004, 2005,3 2006
and2007(20042007GAAs),subjecttocertainconditions:

x x x Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses. Appropriations authorized herein may be used for
extraordinaryexpensesofthefollowingofficialsandthoseofequivalentrankasmaybeauthorizedbythe
DBM,notexceeding:

(a)P180,000foreachDepartmentSecretary

(b)P65,000foreachDepartmentUndersecretary

(c)P35,000foreachDepartmentAssistantSecretary

(d)P30,000foreachheadofbureauororganizationofequalranktoabureauandforeachDepartment
RegionalDirector

(e)P18,000foreachBureauRegionalDirectorand

(f)P13,000foreachMunicipalTrialCourtJudge,MunicipalCircuitTrialCourtJudge,andShariaCircuit
CourtJudge.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_204869_2014.html 1/8
4/25/2017 G.R.No.204869

Inaddition,miscellaneousexpensesnotexceedingFiftyThousand

Pesos(P50,000)foreachoftheofficesundertheabovenamedofficialsareauthorized.4(Emphasis
supplied)

On15May2008,theauditteamissuedNoticeofDisallowanceNo.08002101(0406)5disallowingthepayment
of EME amounting to P5,498,706.60 for being in excess of the amount allowed in the 20042007 GAAs. In
addition,theEMEweredisbursedtoTESDAofficialswhosepositionswerenotofequivalentranksasauthorized
bytheDepartmentofBudgetandManagement(DBM),contrarytotheprovisionsofthe20042007GAAs.Notice
of Disallowance No. 08002101 (0406) indicated the persons liable for the excessive payment of EME: the
approvingofficers,payeesandtheaccountants.6

On 4 July 2008, TESDA, through its then DirectorGeneral Augusto Boboy Syjuco, Jr., filed an Appeal
Memorandum7arguingthatthe20042007GAAsandtheGovernmentAccountingandAuditingManualallowed
thegrantofEMEfromboththeGeneralFundandtheTESDPFundprovidedthelegalceilingwasnotexceeded
for each fund. According to TESDA, the General Fund and the TESDP Fund are distinct from each other, and
TESDAofficialswhoweredesignatedasprojectofficersconcurrentlywiththeirregularfunctionswereentitledto
separateEMEfrombothfunds.

TheRulingoftheCommissiononAudit

In a Decision dated 5 September 2008,8 the COA Cluster Director, Cluster VII, National Government Sector,
deniedtheappealforlackofmerit.TheCOAClusterDirectorruledthat:

Onthefirstissue,theGAAprovisiononEMEisverycleartotheeffectthatpaymentofEMEmaybetakenfrom
any authorized appropriation but shall not exceed the ceiling stated therein. It had been consistently held that
whenthelanguageofthelawisclearandunequivocalitshouldbegivenitscommonandordinarymeaning.Ifthe
legislativeintentistograntofficialsEMEofunlimitedamount,nolimitorceilingshouldhavebeenincludedinthe
GAA. On the other hand, the Audit Team Leader stated that the inclusion in TESDA budget for EME in TESDP
Fund,whichwasactuallyfoundonlyintheGAAforFY2005couldnotserveasbasisforthegrantofEME,should
not be treated distinctly and separately from EME provision under the General Provisions of the GAA as the
officialswhowerepaidtheEMEfrom[TESDPFund]arethesameTESDAofficialswhowerealreadypaidEME
out[oftheGeneralFund].ItshouldbeemphasizedthatthedesignationofTESDAofficialsasProjectManagersin
concurrent capacities to offices under TESDP, forms part only of their additional functions without another
appointment.TheEMEiscoveredbythecompensationattachedtohisprincipalofficeandnotforeveryproject
handled.xxx.

OnthesecondissuewhetherofficialswhoarenotofequivalentrankasauthorizedbytheDBM,theAuditTeam
Leaderinformedthattheofficialsweredesignatedfor[positions]whicharenotincludedinthePersonnelService
Itemization(PSI)andthecreationofsaidpositions[was]notsupportedwithauthorityorapprovalfromtheDBM.
Neither was there a DBM document identifying the equivalent ranks of these positions as basis for ascertaining
theamountofEMEtobepaid.

OnthethirdissuewhethertheRegionalDirectorswhowerenotperformingasheadoftheBureauoraregional
officeororganizationunitofequalrank,becauseoftheirreassignmenttotheOfficeoftheDirector[]General,the
samewerenotentitledtoreceiveEMEsincetheDirector[]Generalanditsofficearealreadyclaimingthesaid
amount.TherecouldbenotwoofficialsentitledtoreceiveEMEalthoughtheyarelistedintheGAAasentitledto
receivethesame.9

On4December2008,TESDA,throughitsDirectorGeneral,filedapetitionforreviewwithCOA.

InaDecisiondated15November2012,10COAdeniedTESDAspetitionforlackofmerit.TheCOAadoptedthe
findings of both the TESDA audit team and the COA Cluster Director that the grant of EME exceeded the
allowable limit in the 20042007 GAAs. The COA emphasized that the provision in the 20042007 GAAs that
granted EME clearly provided a ceiling for its grant. Accordingly, the COA ruled that the failure of the TESDA
officials to adhere to the 20042007 GAAs negated their claim of good faith. Thus, the COA ordered them to
refundtheexcessEMEtheyreceived.

InaResolutiondated12March2013,11theCourtEnBancresolvedtoexcusetheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral
from representing the COA due to conflict of interest considering that both COA and TESDA are government
agenciesbeingrepresentedbyit.

TheIssues

Inthispetition,TESDAseeksareversalandraisesthefollowingissuesforresolution:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_204869_2014.html 2/8
4/25/2017 G.R.No.204869

A.THE[COA]GRAVELYERREDINDISALLOWINGTHEPAYMENTSMADEBYTESDATOITSOFFICIALS
OFTHEIR[EME]FROMBOTH[GENERALFUND]AND[TESDPFUND]

B.THE [COA] LIKEWISE GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THE OFFICERS OF TESDA INDIVIDUALLY
LIABLEFORTHETOTALDISALLOWANCEINTHEAMOUNTOFP5,498,706.60EVENIFTHEYMAYBE
RIGHTFULLY CONSIDERED AS DEFACTO OFFICERS IN GOOD FAITH WHO ARE ENTITLED TO EME
FORACTUALSERVICESRENDERED

C.THE[COA]LIKEWISEGRAVELYERREDINHOLDINGTHATCONSIDERINGTHECEILINGSETFORTH
BY SECTIONS 23[, 25] AND 26 OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE [20042007 GAAS], THE
CONCERNEDTESDAOFFICIALSCLAIMSFOREMEAREUNAUTHORIZEDANDEXCESSIVE

D.FINALLY, THE [COA] GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CONCERNED TESDA OFFICIALS
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DE FACTO OFFICERS IN GOOD FAITH AND IN DISREGARDING THE
RELEVANTRULINGOFTHESUPREMECOURTINTHECASEOFCA[N]TILLOVS.ARRIETA.12

TheRulingoftheCourt

Thepetitionispartlymeritorious.

TheConstitutionvestsCOA,asguardianofpublicfunds,withenoughlatitudetodetermine,preventanddisallow
irregular,unnecessary,excessive,extravagantorunconscionableexpendituresofgovernmentfunds.13TheCOA
isgenerallyaccordedcompletediscretionintheexerciseofitsconstitutionaldutyandtheCourtgenerallysustains
itsdecisionsinrecognitionofitsexpertiseinthelawsitisentrustedtoenforce.14

Only when COAacts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excessofjurisdiction,maytheCourtgrantapetitionassailingCOAsactions.Thereisgraveabuseofdiscretion
when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in
contemplationoflawaswhenthejudgmentrenderedisnotbasedonlawandevidencebutoncaprice,whimand
despotism.15

WedonotfindanygraveabuseofdiscretionwhenCOAdisallowedthedisbursementofEMEtoTESDAofficials
forbeingexcessiveandunauthorizedbylaw,specificallythe20042007GAAs,towit:

x x x Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses. Appropriations authorized herein may be used for
extraordinaryexpensesofthefollowingofficialsandthoseofequivalentrankasmaybeauthorizedbytheDBM,
notexceeding:

(a)P180,000foreachDepartmentSecretary

(b)P65,000foreachDepartmentUndersecretary

(c)P35,000foreachDepartmentAssistantSecretary

(d)P30,000foreachheadofbureauororganizationofequalranktoabureauandforeachDepartment
RegionalDirector

(e)P18,000foreachBureauRegionalDirectorand

(f)P13,000foreachMunicipalTrialCourtJudge,MunicipalCircuitTrialCourtJudge,andShariaCircuit
CourtJudge.

Inaddition,miscellaneousexpensesnotexceedingFiftyThousandPesos(P50,000)foreachoftheoffices
undertheabovenamedofficialsareauthorized.16(Boldfacinganditalicizationsupplied)

The GAA provisions are clear that the EME shall not exceed the amounts fixed in the GAA. The GAA
provisionsarealsoclearthatonlytheofficialsnamedintheGAA,theofficersofequivalentrankasmay
be authorized by the DBM, and the offices under them are entitled to claim EME not exceeding the
amountprovidedintheGAA.

The COA faithfully implemented the GAA provisions. COA Circular No. 201200117 states that the amount fixed
undertheGAAfortheNationalGovernmentofficesandofficialsshallbetheceilinginthedisbursementofEME.
COACircularNo.89300,18prescribingtheguidelinesinthedisbursementofEME,likewisestatesthattheamount
fixedbytheGAAshallbethebasisforthecontrolinthedisbursementofthesefunds.

The COA merely complied with its mandate when it disallowed the EME that were reimbursed to officers who
were not entitled to the EME, or who received EME in excess of the allowable amount. When the law is clear,
plainandfreefromambiguity,thereshouldbenoroomforinterpretationbutonlyitsapplication.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_204869_2014.html 3/8
4/25/2017 G.R.No.204869

However,TESDAinsistsonitsinterpretationjustifyingitspaymentofEMEoutoftheTESDPFund.Itarguesthat
the20042007GAAsdidnotprohibititsofficialsfromreceivingadditionalEMEchargeableagainstanauthorized
funding,theTESDPFundinthiscase,foranotherofficetowhichtheyhavebeendesignated.

WedonotfindmeritinTESDAsargument.

TheTESDAisaninstrumentalityofthegovernmentestablishedunderRepublicActNo.7796ortheTESDAActof
1994. UnderSection33oftheTESDAAct,theTESDAbudgetfortheimplementationoftheActisincludedinthe
1 w p h i1

annualGAAhence,theTESDPFund,beingsourcedfromtheTreasury,arefundsbelongingtothegovernment,
oranyofitsdepartments,inthehandsofpublicofficials.19TheConstitutionprovides,"Nomoneyshallbepaidout
oftheTreasuryexceptinpursuanceofanappropriationmadebylaw."20TheStateAuditCode,whichprescribes
theguidelinesindisbursingpublicfunds,reiteratesthisimportantConstitutionalprovisionthatthereshouldbean
appropriationlaworotherstatutesspecificallyauthorizingpaymentoutofanypublicfunds.21Inthiscase,TESDA
failed to point out the law specifically authorizing it to grant additional reimbursement for EME from the TESDP
Fund, contrary to the explicit requirement in the Constitution and the law. In Yap v. Commission on Audit,22we
upheldCOAsdisallowanceofmedicalexpensesandotherbenefitssuchascarmaintenance,gasolineallowance
and drivers subsidy due to petitioners failure to point out the law specifically authorizing the same. There is
nothing in the 20042007 GAAs which allows TESDA to grant its officials another set of EME from another
sourceoffundliketheTESDPFund.COAaptlypointedoutthatnotevenTESDAsinclusionofEMEfromboth
theGeneralFundandtheTESDPFundinthe2005GAAjustifieditspaymentofexcessiveEMEfrom2004upto
2007.23The2005GAAprovidedforaceilingonEMEthatTESDAstillhadtocomplydespitethegrantofEMEin
the2005GAAforforeignassistedprojects.

ThepositionofprojectofficerisnotamongthoselistedorauthorizedtobeentitledtoEME,namely,theofficials
namedintheGAA,theofficersofequivalentrankasmaybeauthorizedbytheDBM,andtheofficesunderthem.
The underlying principle behind the EME is to enable those occupying key positions in the government to meet
various financial demands.24 As pointed out by COA, the position of project officer is not even included in the
PersonnelServiceItemizationorcreatedwithauthorityfromtheDBM.25Thus,theTESDAofficialswere,infact,
merelydesignatedwithadditionalduties,whichdesignationdidnotentitlethemtoadditionalEME.InDimaandalv.
COA,26 we held that designation is a mere imposition of additional duties, which does not entail payment of
additionalbenefits.SincetheTESDAofficialsweremerelydesignatedwithadditionalduties,therulinginCantillo
v.Arrieta27ondefactoofficersneednotbediscussed.

HavingsettledthatCOAproperlydisallowedthepaymentofexcessiveEMEbyTESDA,weproceedtodetermine
whethertheTESDAofficialsshouldrefundtheexcessEMEgrantedtothem.

In Blaquera v. Alcala,28 the Court no longer required the officials and employees of different government
departmentsandagenciestorefundtheproductivityincentivebonustheyreceivedbecausetherewasnoindicia
ofbadfaithandthedisbursementwasmadeinthehonestbeliefthattherecipientsdeservedtheamounts.We,
however, qualified this Blaquera ruling in Casal v. COA,29 where we held the approving officials liable for the
refundoftheincentiveawardduetotheirpatentdisregardoftheissuancesofthePresidentandthedirectivesof
COA.InCasal,weruledthattheofficialsfailuretoobservetheissuancesamountedtogrossnegligence,whichis
inconsistentwiththepresumptionofgoodfaith.WeappliedtheCasalrulinginVelascov.COA,30towit:

xxxtheblatantfailureofthepetitionersapprovingofficerstoabidewiththeprovisionsofAO103and
AO161overcamethepresumptionofgoodfaith.Thedeliberatedisregardoftheseissuancesisequivalentto
gross negligence amounting to bad faith. Therefore, the petitionersapproving officers are accountable for the
refundofthesubjectincentiveswhichtheyreceived.

However, with regard to the employees who had no participation in the approval of the subject incentives, they
were neither in bad faith nor were they grossly negligent for having received the benefits under the
circumstances.Theapprovingofficersallowanceofthesaidawardscertainlytendedtogiveitacoloroflegality
fromtheperspectiveoftheseemployees.Beingingoodfaith,theyarethereforeundernoobligationtorefundthe
subjectbenefitswhichtheyreceived.31(Emphasissupplied)

Applying by analogy the Blaquera, Casal and Velasco rulings, as well as Section 16 of the 2009 Rules and
Regulations on Settlement of Accounts,32 we hold the approving officers of TESDA liable for the excess EME
receivedbythem.

TheTESDAActprovidesthattheTESDASecretariat,headedbytheDirectorGeneral,shallproposethespecific
allocationofresourcesfortheprogramsandprojectsitshallundertakepursuanttoapprovednationaltechnical
educationandskillsdevelopmentplan.33AschiefexecutiveofficeroftheTESDASecretariat,theDirectorGeneral
shalllikewiseexercisegeneralsupervisionandcontroloveritstechnicalandadministrativepersonnel.34

InthepetitionfiledbeforetheCourt,TESDAallegedthatthevariousmemorandaissuedbytheDirectorGeneral
authorized the TESDA officials designated as TESDP project officers to claim EME under the TESDP Fund.35
TESDA did not cite a specific provision of law authorizing such EME, but claimed that its grant had been an
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_204869_2014.html 4/8
4/25/2017 G.R.No.204869
36
"institutionalpractice," showingthelackofstatutoryauthoritytopaysuchEME.Despitethislackofauthorityfor
granting additional EME, the then DirectorGeneral still permitted EME in excess of the allowable amount and
extendedEMEtoofficialsnotentitledtoit,patentlycontrarytothe20042007GAAs.ThethenDirectorGeneral
himselfreceivedEMEfromtheTESDPFundamountingtoP809,691.11,37contrarytohisclaimthatonlyexecutive
directors, regional directors or officials holding equivalent positions assigned by him as project officers were
entitledtoEMEfromtheTESDPFund.38ThethenDirectorGenerallikewiseinsistedonhisowninterpretationof
the 20042007 GAAs disregarding the basic principle of statutory construction that when the law is clear, there
should be no room for interpretation but only its application. If there was any ambiguity in the law, the then
DirectorGeneral should have sought clarification from DBM and should not have simply relied on his own
interpretation,whichwasselfserving.

Accordingly,theDirectorGeneral'sblatantviolationoftheclearprovisionsoftheConstitution,the2004
2007GAAsandtheCOAcircularsisequivalenttogrossnegligenceamountingtobadfaith.Heisrequired
to refund the EME he received from the TESDP Fund for himself. As for the TESDA officials who had no
participation in the approval of the excessive EME, they acted in good faith since they had no hand in the
approvaloftheunauthorizedEME.TheyalsohonestlybelievedthattheadditionalEMEwerereimbursementfor
theirdesignationasprojectofficersbytheDirectorGeneral.Beingingoodfaith,theyneednotrefundtheexcess
EMEtheyreceived.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the Commission on Audit Decision No. 2012210 dated 15 November 2012 with
MODIFICATION. Only the DirectorGenerals39 of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority who
approved the excess or unauthorized extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses are ordered to refund the
excessextraordinaryandmiscellaneousexpenseswhichtheyreceivedforthemselves.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

PRESBITERJ.VELASCO,JR. TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

Idissent:
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

BIENVENIDOL.REYES ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARVICMARIOVICTORF.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
beenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_204869_2014.html 5/8
4/25/2017 G.R.No.204869

Footnotes
1
UnderRule64inrelationtoRule65ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
2
Rollo,pp.2529.SignedbyChairpersonMa.GraciaM.PulidoTan,CommissionerJuanitoG.Espino,Jr.,
andCommissionerHeidiL.Mendoza.
3
In Republic Act No. 9336 or the 2005 GAA, there was a specific appropriation for TESDAs confidential,
intelligence, extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses amounting to P2,582,000.00 for locally funded
projectsandP2,562,000.00fortheforeignassistedprojects.
4
RepublicActNo.9206orthe2003GAA(Reenactedfor2004),Section23RepublicActNo.9336orthe
20052006GAAs,Section25andRepublicActNo.9401orthe2007GAA,Section26,wheretheamounts
wereincreasedto:

xxxx

(a)P220,000foreachDepartmentSecretary

(b)P90,000foreachDepartmentUndersecretary

(c)P50,000foreachDepartmentAssistantSecretary

(d)P38,000foreachheadofbureauororganizationofequivalentrank,andforeachheadofa
DepartmentRegionalOffice

(e)P22,000foreachheadofaBureauRegionalOfficeororganizationofequivalentrankand

(f)P16,000foreachMunicipalTrialCourtJudge,MunicipalCircuitTrialCourtJudge,andSharia
CircuitCourtJudge.

Inaddition,miscellaneousexpensesnotexceedingSixtyThousandPesos(P60,000)foreachofthe
officesundertheabovenamedofficialsarehereinauthorized."
5
Rollo,pp.3739.
6
Id.at3839and50.Thefollowingpersonsweredeterminedtobeliableaspayeesandapprovingofficers:
DirectorGenerals Alcestis Guiang and Augusto Boboy Syjuco, Jr. The other payees are: Deputy Director
Generals Milagros Dawa Hernandez, Santiago M. Yabut, Jr., Rogelio C. Peyuan, and Pastor Guiao
ExecutiveDirectorsAugustoA.Capio,CliffordParagua,JuanitoCuerva,ValerioD.Rola,GasparGayona,
OrlandoNaag,MartaM.Hernandez,EdwinGatinao,NoelVillaflor,Ma.SusandelaRama,ErnestoBeltran,
Yerma Saulon, Maria Paz Urcia, Agrifina F. Zafra, Washington M. Agustin, Teodoro Sanico, Elmer K.
Talavera,PilarG.deLeon,IreneM.Isaac,GabrielGenaroBordado,CecileB.Gutierrez,MarissaLegaspi,
Lourdes T. Reyes, Brenda Furagganan, Imelda B. Taganas and Antonio B. del Rosario Assistant Project
Director Raul K. Tanchico Assistant Executive Director Francisco B. Jucar, Jr. PMO Project Manager
AnselmoG.PegtuanPMOProjectLegalOfficerAtty.MarjorieDocdocilandPMODeputyProjectManager
Ma. Magdalena P. Butad. The accountants liable for certifying that the disbursement vouchers were
supportedbythenecessarydocumentsare:AccountingDivisionChiefsCarizaA.DacumaandGuillermina
L.Aguilar.
7
Id.at6167.
8
Id.at4245.
9
Id.at4344.
10
Id.at2529.ThedispositiveportionoftheCOAdecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit.Accordingly,NDNo.[08002101(0406)]datedMay15,2008disallowingthepaymentofEME
toTESDApersonnelforCYs20042007amountingtoP5,498,706.60isAFFIRMED.
11
Id.at82A.
12
Id.at9.
13
The1987Constitution,ArticleIXD,Section2provides:xxxx
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_204869_2014.html 6/8
4/25/2017 G.R.No.204869

2.TheCommissionshallhaveexclusiveauthority,subjecttothelimitationsinthisArticle,todefinethe
scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and
promulgate accounting and auditing rules, and regulations including those for the prevention and
disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or
usesofgovernmentfundsandproperties.
14
Nazarethv.Villar,G.R.No.188635,29January2013,689SCRA385Yapv.CommissiononAudit,G.R.
No.158562,23April2010,619SCRA154Sanchezv.CommissiononAudit,575Phil.428(2008).
15
Yapv.CommissiononAudit,supranote14,citingFerrerv.OfficeoftheOmbudsman,583Phil.50
(2008).
16
Supranote4.
17
Dated14June2012.
18
Dated21March1989.
19
Professional Video, Inc. v. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, G.R. No. 155504, 26
June2009,591SCRA83.
20
1987Constitution,ArticleVI,Section29.
21
PresidentialDecreeNo.1445,Section4.
22
Supranote14.
23
Rollo,p.49.
24
COACircularNo.89300.
25
Rollo,p.49.
26
353Phil.525(1998).
27
158Phil.714(1974).
28
356Phil.678(1998).
29
538Phil.634(2006).
30
G.R.No.189774,18September2012,681SCRA102.
31
Id.at117.
32
Section16.DeterminationofPersonsResponsible/Liable.

Section16.1Theliabilityofpublicofficersandotherpersonsforauditdisallowances/chargesshallbe
determined on the basis of (a) the nature of the disallowance/charge (b) the duties and
responsibilitiesorobligationsofofficers/employeesconcerned(c)theextentoftheirparticipationin
thedisallowed/chargedtransactionand(d)theamountofdamageorlosstothegovernment,thus:

xxxx

16.1.3Publicofficerswhoapproveorauthorizeexpendituresshallbeheldliableforlossesarisingout
oftheirnegligenceorfailuretoexercisethediligenceofagoodfatherofafamily.
33
TESDAActof1994,Sections10(b),(d)and11.
34
TESDAActof1994,Section11.
35
Rollo,p.7.TESDAstated:"xxxpursuanttothevariousmemorandaissuedbythethenTESDADirector
General Augusto L. Syjuco, Jr., in his capacity as TESDP Project Director, TESDA Officials who were
designated as TESDP Project Officers were authorized to claim EME under [TESDP Fund] in connection
withthedischargeoftheirfunctionsrelatedtotheimplementationoftheTESDP.xxx."
36
Id.at11.
37
Id.at37.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_204869_2014.html 7/8
4/25/2017 G.R.No.204869
38
Id.at62.
39
DirectorGeneralAlcestisGuiangandDirectorGeneralAugustoBoboySyjuco,Jr.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_204869_2014.html 8/8