COA says gov't demand for refund of P22M illegal Capitol bonus in Court's hands
The Capitol's coffers will be P22 million richer, that is, if the Iloilo Provincial Government will pay up the demanded refund of such amount declared illegal disbursement.
Resolution of the last legal recourse hangs though with yet another reconsideration sought before the Supreme Court (SC) on a recent SC ruling that upheld a Commission on Audit (COA) order – all P22 million disbursed back in 2002 as added bonus was in fact an illegal bonus.
In a phone interview yesterday, COA State Auditor V Arlene Togonon said as far as the Commission is concerned, the commission's battle is over. The manner of collection and refund will have to be with the SC's say on the matter.
If and when the refund is realized, one of the expected modes would be "salary-deduction" while those no longer in the Iloilo Provincial Government employ will have to be paid by direct superiors.
Governor Niel Tupas, former Provincial Treasurer Melba Sullivan, Provincial Budget Officer Elena Lim and the Provincial Accountant were among the Capitol officials held jointly and severally liable for the disallowed multi-million release.
To note, the SC in an en banc in a resolution dated March 4, 2008 affirmed the COA declaring over P21 million in Iloilo Provincial Government bonus illegal.
The SC Resolution cited three grounds in denying the Petition for Review citing technicalities that led to the denial of said Petition for Review sought. Such, alongside the explanation, "In any event, the petition would still be dismissed for failure thereof to sufficiently show that public respondent Commission On Audit committed any reversible error in the challenged decisions as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this Case."
"Moreover, if the petition were treated as a special civil action under Rule 65 of the aforesaid Rules (Rules of Court), the same would also be dismissed for failure to sufficiently show that there any grave abuse of discretion was committed," excerpts of the SC ruling went.
Docketed UDK-13996 entitled Provincial Government of Iloilo vs. Commission on Audit, technicalities were 'blamed' on Capitol's lawyer.
The Petition apparently did not comply with the basic need for required verification and non-forum shopping "as the same was insufficient/defective for failure of petitioner's counsel to show that he has a special power of attorney to sign said verification and for non-compliance with the required competent evidence of identity under 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice as the affiant on the verification did not present any identification before the notary public while the affiant of the Affidavit of Service presented only his Community Tax Certificate before the notary public."
Secondly came the "failure to pay the docket fees in violation of Rule 64, section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;" and lastly, "being the wrong remedy pursuant to Rule 64 of aforesaid Rules."
Earlier, the COA stood pat on its decision stating only a Certiorari from the SC or a similar ruling can save the officials and employees here from returning the demanded amount.
Otherwise, all P21,001,364.00 must immediately be replenished by the IPG management.
COA first made the post-audit back in January 2003 and issued corresponding Notice of Disallowance.
The order for refund first resurfaced after the COA affirmed "with finality" Decision 2007-005 penned by COA chairman Guillermo Carague and Commissioners Reynaldo Villar and Juanito Espino Jr.
"After an evaluation of the arguments raised, it is shown that these have been judiciously passed upon by this Commission in the assailed Decision. In view thereof and considering also that no new material evidence have been presented that would warrant a reversal or modification of the assailed Decision, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED and COA Decision No. 2007-005 dated February 15, 2007 is AFFIRMED with finality," the Resolution then went.
The controversial Capitol bonus was distributed by the governor back in 2002. The governor's contention was that no refund was necessary following a supposed condonation from no less than President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The COA refused to budge on its findings. It cannot be considered as basis to life the audit disallowances, the COA maintained.