Bustamante vs COA, 216 SCRA 134

Bustamante v COA 216 SCRA 134

FACTS:

            

Petitioner is the Regional Legal Counsel of National Power Corporation (NPC). 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. The petitioner moved for reconsideration of the disallowance of the claim for transportation allowance which was denied.

            

Petitioner appealed this denial to the Commission on Audit which denied do due course. Hence this petition.

            

The petitioner takes exception from the coverage of said circular contending that such circular did not mention the NPC as one of the corporations/offices covered by it ( COA Circular No. 75-6)

ISSUE:

            

Whether such denial to give due course to the appeal of herein petitioner constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction?

            

Whether NPC takes an exception from such coverage of the said circular contending that such circular did not mention NPC as one of the corporations/offices covered by it.

HELD:

            

NO. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

            

NO. It is very patent that the circular is addressed, among others, to managing heads of Government-owned or Controlled Corporations, the NPC being held under such category of corporations. We likewise cannot sustain petitioner's contention that the Commission, in the exercise of its power granted by the Constitution, usurped the statutory functions of the NPC Board of Directors for its leads to the absurd conclusion that a mere Board of Directors of a government-owned and controlled corporation, by issuing a resolution, can put to naught a constitutional provision which has been ratified by the majority of the Filipino people. If We will not sustain the Commission's power and duty to examine, audit and settle accounts pertaining to this particular expenditures or use of funds and property, owned or held in trust by this government-owned and controlled corporation, the NPC, We will be rendering inutile this Constitutional Body which has been tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and ultimately, the people's property.