Scribd
Upload
230 views2 pages

Rufino O. Eslao Vs Commission On Audit

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rufino O. Eslao and the Commission on Audit regarding excess payments of honoraria. The case involved a Memorandum of Agreement between Pangasinan State University and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for an evaluation project funded by the Asian Development Bank. The Commission on Audit disallowed payments claiming lower rates under an older guideline applied, while Pangasinan State University argued the project was foreign-assisted so the rates in the Memorandum of Agreement budget applied. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Pangasinan State University, finding the Commission on Audit cannot substitute its own judgment for applicable laws and regulations.

Uploaded by

Cistron Exon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
230 views2 pages

Rufino O. Eslao Vs Commission On Audit

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case between Rufino O. Eslao and the Commission on Audit regarding excess payments of honoraria. The case involved a Memorandum of Agreement between Pangasinan State University and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for an evaluation project funded by the Asian Development Bank. The Commission on Audit disallowed payments claiming lower rates under an older guideline applied, while Pangasinan State University argued the project was foreign-assisted so the rates in the Memorandum of Agreement budget applied. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Pangasinan State University, finding the Commission on Audit cannot substitute its own judgment for applicable laws and regulations.

Uploaded by

Cistron Exon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Title : RUFINO O.

ESLAO vs COMMISSION ON AUDIT


Citation : G.R. No. 108310
September 1, 1994
Ponente : FELICIANO, J.:

Facts :
On 9 December 1988, PSU entered into a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") with the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR") for the evaluation of eleven (11)
government reforestation operations in Pangasinan. The evaluation project was part of the commitment
of the Asian Development Bank ("ADB") under the ADB/OECF Forestry Sector Program Loan to the
Republic of the Philippines and was one among identical project agreements entered into by the DENR
with sixteen (16) other state universities.
On 16 January 1989, per advice of the PSU Auditor-in-Charge with respect to the payment of
honoraria and per diems of PSU personnel engaged in the review and evaluation project, PSU Vice
President for Research and Extension and Assistant Project Director Victorino P. Espero requested the
Office of the President, PSU, to have the University's Board of Regents ("BOR") confirm the
appointments or designations of involved PSU personnel including the rates of honoraria and per diems
corresponding to their specific roles and functions.
The BOR approved the MOA on 30 January 1989 and on 1 February 1989, PSU issued Voucher
No. 8902007 representing the amount of P70, 375 for payment of honoraria to PSU personnel engaged
in the project. Later, however, the approved honoraria rates were found to be somewhat higher than
the rates provided for in the guidelines of National Compensation Circular ("NCC") No. 53. Accordingly,
the amounts were adjusted downwards to conform to NCC No. 53. Adjustments were made by
deducting amounts from subsequent disbursements of honoraria. By June 1989, NCC No. 53 was being
complied with.
On 6 July 1989, Bonifacio Icu, COA resident auditor at PSU, alleging that there were excess
payments of honoraria, issued a "Notice of Disallowance" disallowing P64,925 from the amount of
P70,37 stated in Voucher No. 8902007, mentioned earlier. The resident auditor based his action on the
premise that Compensation Policy Guidelines ("CPG") No. 80-4, dated 7 August 1980, issued by the
Department of Budget and Management which provided for lower rates than NCC No. 53 dated 21 June
1988, also issued by the Department of Budget and Management, was the schedule for honoraria and
per diems applicable to work done under the MOA of 9 December 1988 between the PSU and the DENR.

Issue :
Whether or not the evaluation project is in fact a "special project" and that there were excess of
payments of honoraria.

Held :
The instant evaluation project being a Foreign-Assisted Project, the PSU personnels involved in
the project shall be paid according to the Budget Estimate schedule of the MOA.
COA, under its constitutional mandate, is not authorized to substitute its own judgment for any
applicable law or administrative regulation with the wisdom or propriety of which, however, it does not
agree, at least not before such law or regulation is set aside by the authorized agency of government –
i.e., the courts – as unconstitutional or illegal and void. The COA, like all other government agencies,
must respect the presumption of legality and constitutionality to which statutes and administrative
regulations are entitled until such statute or regulation is repealed or amended, or until set aside in
appropriate case by a competent court and ultimately the Supreme Court.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy