Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Coa Decision No. 2019-416
Coa Decision No. 2019-416
2019-416
DECISION
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 1/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
1
Before this Commission are the Petitions for Money Claim of the employees
of the National Power Corporation (NPC) terminated/separated pursuant to National
Power Board (NPB) Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125 both dated November
18, 2002, against NPC and Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management
Corporation (PSALM), for the payment of the judgment award for backwages, salary
differentials, wage adjustments, separation pay, and interest based on the decision of
the Supreme Court (SC) in NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association (DAMA), et al.
2
vs. NPC, et al .
Considering that the petitions involve the same claims against the same agency,
this Commission consolidated the same for a more uniform application of the rules.
On June 26, 2001, Republic Act (RA) No. 9136, otherwise known as the
Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), was enacted to provide reforms in the
electric power industry, which includes the privatization of the assets and liabilities of
3
the NPC. Pursuant to this objective, EPIRA created the NPB consisting of seven
Cabinet Secretaries, to wit: (a) Secretary of Finance, (b) Secretary of Energy, (c)
Secretary of Budget and Management, (d) Secretary of Agriculture, (e) Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources, (f) Secretary of Interior and Local Government,
and (g) Secretary of Trade and Industry, and two heads of agencies, to wit: the
Director-General of the National Economic and Development Authority and the
President of the NPC.
On November 18, 2002, in line with the privatization of NPC and pursuant to
4
Section 63 of the EPIRA, NPB issued NPB Resolution No. 2002-124 which provides
for the Guidelines on the Separation Program of NPC and the Selection and
Placement of Personnel in the NPC Table of Organization. Under said resolution, all
NPC personnel shall be terminated on January 31, 2003 and shall be entitled to
separation benefits. On same date, NPB issued NPB Resolution No. 2002-125
constituting a transition team tasked to manage and implement NPC’s separation
program.
The members of NPC DAMA, NPC Employees and Workers Union (NEWU)-
Northern Luzon Regional Center, and all other concerned NPC employees filed a
5
Petition for Injunction before the SC to enjoin the implementation of NPB
Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125. They contended that the resolutions were
not passed by a majority of the NPB members since only three out of the nine
members were present and qualified to vote during the meeting held for the purpose.
The SC did not issue a temporary restraining order, thus, NPC proceeded with
the termination beginning January 31, 2003.
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 2/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
Later, in Decision dated September 26, 2006, the SC nullified NPB Resolution
Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125. The SC held that the resolutions were not properly
enacted considering the failure of the four specifically identified Cabinet Secretaries
to personally approve and sign the resolutions. The SC ruled that:
xxx
However, said decision was silent as regards the effect of the nullity of the NPB
resolutions to the terminated/separated NPC employees,
Thus, in Resolution dated September 17, 2008, the SC clarified that the logical
and necessary consequence of the declaration of nullity of NPB Resolution Nos.
2002-124 and 2002-125 is the illegality dismissal of the employees on January 31,
2003. Accordingly, the terminated/separated NPC employees have the right to
reinstatement or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, pursuant to a validly-
approved separation program, backwages, wage adjustments, and all other benefits
accruing from January 31, 2003 until actual reinstatement or payment of separation
pay, less the amount of separation benefits previously received under the nullified
resolutions. Moreover, the SC approved a 10% charging lien in favor of the counsels,
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 3/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
Attys. Cornelio P. Aldon and Victoriano V. Orocio, in accordance with the Labor
Code.
On October 10, 2008, the SC Decision dated September 26, 2006 became final
and executory, and an Entry of Judgment thereof was made on October 27, 2008.
In Resolution dated December 10, 2008, the SC granted the motion for
execution, and directed the Chairman and Members of the NPB and the President of
NPC to prepare a verified list of the names of all NPC employees
terminated/separated as a result of the implementation of NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-
124 and 2002-125, and pay or cause to be paid immediately the amounts due to
affected NPC employees including 12% legal interest. Likewise, the SC directed the
Office of the Clerk of Court and ex-officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Quezon City (QC) to issue a Writ of Execution based on the list submitted by NPC
and undertake all necessary actions to execute the decision and resolution.
Citing willful failure of the NPB and NPC to comply with the Resolution dated
December 10, 2008, the terminated/separated NPC employees, in a Manifestation
with Urgent Omnibus Motions dated February 9, 2009, moved for the garnishment
and/or levy of NPC assets, including but not limited to the assets of PSALM, for the
satisfaction of the judgment.
Meanwhile, in its Compliance dated March 9, 2009, NPC manifested that there
were only 16 NPC personnel, consisting of top level employees occupying the
positions of Senior Vice President, Vice President, and Department Manager
terminated on January 31, 2003, contrary to the manifestation of the
terminated/separated NPC employees. Moreover, since it was not barred from
approving another separation program for its employees, on September 14, 2007, NPB
issued Resolution No. 2007-55 adopting, confirming, and approving the principles
and guidelines enunciated in the nullified Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125.
NPC claimed that NPB Resolution No. 2007-55 cured the infirm NPB Resolution
Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125.
However, in Resolution dated December 2, 2009, the SC ruled that its Decision
dated September 26, 2006 contemplated the illegal dismissal of all, not only of 16
NPC employees, pursuant to NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125.
Moreover, the SC found that NPB subsequently issued Resolution No. 2003-11 dated
January 22, 2003 showing the effectivity of termination of personnel on February 28,
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 4/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
2003 since it was no longer tenable for NPC to complete the separation of employees
on January 31, 2003. The SC held that:
Additionally, NPC subsequently issued Circular No. 2003-09, showing that the legal
termination of its employees was implemented in four tranches, namely:
In light of these issuances, the SC ruled that the right to reinstatement, or separation
pay in lieu of reinstatement pursuant to a validly approved separation program, plus
backwages, wage adjustments, and other benefits shall be computed from, instead of
January 31, 2003, the date of legal termination as stated in NPC Circular No. 2003-09,
to wit:
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 5/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
4) For all other NPC personnel, their legal termination shall be at the
close of office hours/shift schedule of February 28, 2003.
less the amount of separation benefits which they previously received under the null
resolutions.
The SC further ruled that NPC Resolution No. 2007-55 did not cure the defects
of the null resolutions, and that the same should be applied prospectively. Thereunder,
the services of all NPC employees have been legally terminated on September 14,
2007. Thus, the terminated/separated NPC employees’ entitlement shall be reckoned
from the dates indicated in NPC Circular No. 2003-09 up to September 14, 2007.
Thereafter, in Resolution dated June 30, 2014, the SC lifted the status quo
order. Thus, pursuant to said resolution, the Clerk of Court and the ex-officio Sheriff
of the RTC of QC issued a Demand for Immediate Payment amounting to
P62,051,646,567.13 and served the same upon NPC and PSALM. On July 31, 2014,
Notices of Garnishment were issued addressed to MERALCO and National
Transmission Commission (Transco) with respect to all credits in or under their
possession or control owing or payable to NPC and/or PSALM, including but not
limited to bank deposits and financial interests, goods, effects, stocks, interest in stock
and shares, and other personal properties. Another Notice of Garnishment was issued
and served upon LBP in relation to NPC and PSALM’s bank accounts. However,
PSALM, in separate letters, advised MERALCO and Transco to exercise restraint and
refrain from releasing funds owing to PSALM to satisfy the Notices of Garnishment
served upon them.
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 6/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
In compliance to the Resolution dated October 20, 2014, NPC submitted a list
of 9,272 employees on March 16, 2015 with reservations on the figures, and PSALM
submitted a list of 47 employees based partially on the information received from
NPC.
Thereafter, NPC and PSALM filed their separate manifestations and motions.
For its part, PSALM argued, among others, that it is liable only for
obligations/liabilities that were exclusively listed under the EPIRA, which does not
include the separation benefits of the terminated/separated NPC employees.
Moreover, prior approval of this Commission must be obtained before any money
judgment can be enforced against it. On the other hand, NPC maintained, among
others, that in the absence of an actual computation of the amounts due the
terminated/separated NPC employees, the Clerk of Court and ex-officio Sheriff of the
RTC of QC cannot garnish NPC properties.
In Resolution dated November 21, 2017, the SC finally addressed all new
issues raised by the parties in their respective motions and manifestations.
In said resolution, the SC affirmed Resolution dated June 30, 2014, holding
that PSALM is directly liable for the judgment obligation. While the general rule is
that NPC, as the employer guilty of illegal dismissal, shall be liable for the
terminated/separated employees’ entitlement, PSALM assumed this obligation.
PSALM’s assumption is clear based on the following reasons:
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 7/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
9
3) At any rate, Sections 49 and 50 of the EPIRA are clear that
PSALM is duty-bound to settle this NPC liability.
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 8/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
Hence, the Petitions for Money Claim filed by the terminated/separated NPC
employees.
1) Pay them their separation pay, less deductions for the Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS), Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR), and the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), having
a net amount of P 73,183,400.34 , representing their backwages,
wage adjustments, other benefits, and separation pay, from March
1, 2003 to September 14, 2007, accrued interest at 12% per
annum from October 10, 2008 to June 30, 2013, and 6% per
annum from July 1, 2013 up to the date NPC and PSALM
complies with the SC’s order;
2) Pay the 10% charging lien to Atty. Aldon and Atty. Orocio;
On the other hand, the separated employees who were subsequently absorbed
in NPC, PSALM, Transco, or employed in another government agency alleged that
while they were rehired and employed under new or different positions, such were
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 9/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
with lower salary rates and with less allowances and benefits. Thus, they prayed that
NPC and PSALM be directed to:
2) Pay the 10% charging lien to Atty. Aldon and Atty. Orocio.
Mr. Zol D. Medina additionally alleged that he is acting on behalf of all the
class suit petitioners in the NPC-DAMA case and as the authorized representative, he
shall effect distribution and make individual payments to each and every member of
the class suit as per computation by NPC/PSALM and approved by this Commission.
In its Comment, the Power Generation Employees Association averred that Mr.
Medina may not be authorized to effect the distribution which would require the
opening of a bank account and preparation of documents. Moreover, there might be a
need for the institution of estate proceedings for deceased employees which would be
a safety concern of Mr. Medina and his family.
In its Answer, the NPC, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), prayed that the petitions be resolved in accordance with the instructions of the
SC in NPC-DAMA case and pursuant to the laws, issuances, and policies applicable
during the reckoning period.
On the other hand, PSALM, through the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel, in its Answer, posed the following:
2) The money claims are unfounded and should be denied as they are
unsupported by the proper documentation, contrary to both law
and jurisprudence;
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 10/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
The Supervising Auditor (SA) made the following comments on the money
claims:
2) Some were not rehired while others were rehired and employed
with the government after their separation from NPC;
5) The claims of petitioner who are without any gaps in service shall
be denied; and
6) Mr. Medina does not have any evidence showing that he was
authorized by the other petitioners and potential claimants to
represent them and file the claim on their behalf.
In view of the foregoing, the SA recommended that the claims be given due
course.
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 11/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
claims be given due course in the amounts determined by the SA. As for the rehired
claimants, the CD submitted that the SC decision was silent as to the payment of
salary differentials, thus, this Commission cannot rule on this issue. Anent Mr.
Medina, the CD agreed that he failed to present proof that he was authorized to
represent and file the claim on behalf of the petitioners.
12
In an Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Resolve dated March 1, 2019 and
13
in an Addendum of Documents dated April 17, 2019, Atty. Napoleon U. Galit,
counsel for other claimants, alleged that this case is a class suit for which one
consolidated decision involving the 9,272 employees shall apply, and prayed that an
award of agency charge and attorney’s fees be incorporated in the decision pursuant to
a resolution signed between him and NPC DAMA.
ISSUE
The issue to be resolved is whether or not the Petitions for Money Claim are
meritorious.
DISCUSSION
Thus, despite the finality of the decision of the SC in the NPC DAMA case, its
execution is subject to the primary jurisdiction of this Commission. In University of
14
the Philippines vs. Agustin Dizon , the SC ruled that:
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 12/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
despite the final decision of the RTC having already validated the
claim . As such, Stern Builders and dela Cruz as the claimants had
no alternative except to first seek the approval of the COA of their
monetary claim. (Emphasis supplied)
However, there are limits to what this Commission may review when
confronted with a money claim based on a final and executory judgment. This
Commission is bound to respect the final character of such judgment, the merits of the
claim having been assessed and adjudged by the courts. Prudence requires this
Commission to accept the judicial determination of the claim on the merits against the
government instrumentally adjudged as liable, since, as a general rule, a final
judgment may no longer be altered, amended, or modified and any attempt on the part
of the responsible entities charged with the execution of the final judgment to insert,
change, or add matters not clearly contemplated in the dispositive portion violates the
15
rule on immutability of judgments.
This Commission finds that the issue on whether petitioners are entitled to
monetary awards arising from an illegal dismissal case has been judiciously passed
17
upon by the SC in its decision in the NPC DAMA case. As such, the following
matters are determined to be final:
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 13/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
adjustments;
This Commission shall now proceed to determine the computation of the claims
of the petitioners based on the guidelines provided in Resolution dated November 21,
2017.
A. Separation pay
The separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to each petitioner shall be either
the:
1) Separation pay under the EPIRA and the NPC restructuring plan
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 14/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
c) Length of service.
18
2) Separation gratuity under RA No. 6656, depending on their
qualification.
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 15/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125 directed the termination from
service of all NPC employees effective January 31, 2003. However, the NPC
subsequently issued NPC Circular No. 2003-09 setting forth four different dates of
effectivity, namely:
Thus, backwages shall be counted from each group’s respective effective date
of termination, as the case may be, until September 14, 2007 or the petitioners’ date of
retirement, in case petitioner retired after the effective date of termination but before
September 14, 2007.
The backwages shall be computed based on the most recent salary rate upon
termination. The backwages should include other monetary benefits attached to the
employee’s salary. Backwages shall include other monetary benefits attached to the
employee’s salary following the principle that an illegally dismissed government
employee who is later reinstated is entitled to all the rights and privilege that accrue to
19
him/her by virtue of the office he/she held.
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 16/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
The SC held that the award of backwages to rehired employees amounts to unjust
enrichment and damage to the government. The SC reasoned that:
While it would not seem equitable for such employees to receive less than
other employees who were unrehired or employed elsewhere, nevertheless, they are
likewise not entitled to receive salary differentials, since, as the SC ruled, they cannot
benefit from the nullified NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124 and 2002-125 and at the
same time be allowed to benefit from the award of full backwages, wage adjustments,
and other benefits. Thus, this Commission shall refrain from ruling on the rehired
employees’ claim for salary differential.
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 17/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
From the separation pay, backwages, and other wage adjustments, the amount
of each employee shall receive must be reduced by any separation pay each of them
has already received under the separation plan.
Anent the 10% charging lien, this Commission rules that the charging lien of
Attys. Aldon and Orocio shall be 10% of the petitioners’ entitlement, after deducting
the separation pay already received under the restructuring plan. As a charging lien,
the attorney’s fees shall be taken from each employee’s entitlement. However, any
legal interest due on the petitioners’ entitlement shall not be subject to the 10%
charging lien.
Anent the imposition of legal interest, this Commission, in COA Decision No.
20 21
2017-110 dated April 26, 2017, already clarified that pursuant to Sections 85(1)
22
and 86 of PD No. 1445 legal interest cannot be awarded in the absence of funds
duly appropriated for such purpose. In said decision, this Commission cited the case
23
of Collector of Internal Revenue vs. St. Paul’s Hospital of Iloilo , thus:
We agree, however, with the Solicitor General that the Court of Tax
Appeals erred in ordering the payment of interest on the amount to be
refunded to respondent herein. In the absence of a statutory provision
clearly or expressly directing or authorizing such payment, and none
has been cited by the respondent . The National Government cannot
be required to pay interest . So much the decision appealed from as
requires the payment of interest should, therefore, be eliminated.
(Underscoring supplied)
It may be recalled that the NPC DAMA case is a Petition for Injunction seeking
to enjoin the implementation of the allegedly void NPB Resolution Nos. 2002-124
and 2002-15. At the onset, the SC Decision dated September 26, 2006 was silent as to
the effect of the nullity of the resolutions on the terminated/separated NPC employees.
Thus, in its Resolution dated September 17, 2007, the SC clarified that the
terminated/separated NPC employees are, as a consequence, illegally dismissed, and
thus, entitled to reinstatement or separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, backwages,
wage adjustments, and other benefits. As a result of this clarification, NPC was
directed to submit a list of all employees terminated/separated as a result of the
implementation of the nullified resolutions. Problems started to escalate when the
terminated/separated NPC employees sought for the immediate execution of the
judgment award, without the necessary compliance from NPC and disregarding the
rules on the execution of final and executory judgments against the government. This
led to the garnishment of the assets and the impleading of PSALM in the case. Note
that PSALM is not a party in the original Petition for Injunction. The execution of the
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 18/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
judgment award dragged for years in view of the continuous failure of NPC to comply
with the court orders, which eventually led to the SC citing it and the OSG for indirect
contempt, and the novel issues raised by PSALM, notwithstanding the finality of the
decision on October 10, 2008. Still, the execution of the judgment award was deferred
in view of the other issues raised by the affected and interested parties not considered
in the previous resolutions. It was only in Resolution dated November 21, 2017 when
the SC finally resolved all issues raised and left to this Commission the computation
of the claims of the terminated/separated NPC employees.
Legal interest shall accrue on the petitioners’ entitlement, i.e., separation pay,
backwages, and wage adjustments, after deducting the separation pay they already
received under the restructuring plan and the 10% charging lien. Following these
principles, the interest shall be computed as follows:
1) 12% per annum from October 10, 2008, until June 30, 2013; and
The running of the interest shall end once NPC and/or PSALM have offered to
pay the amount owed to each employee. For this purpose, NPC and/or PSALM may
provide for the cut-off on the day before payments due the employees are ready to be
made and the employees have been duly informed thereof.
Lastly, anent the manifestation of Atty. Galit on the award of agency fee and
attorney’s fees, the following documents were submitted in support thereof:
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 19/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
The grant of the agency fee and attorney’s fees is not within the scope of
authority of this Commission. The right of the unions to the agency fee, and Attys.
Galit, Victorino, Nario, and Javier to attorney’s fees, as may have been established in
the documents submitted, is a matter between them and their clients, and may be
prosecuted in the manner provided under the Rules of Court.
RULING
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 20/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
to the availability of funds and the usual accounting and auditing rules and
regulations.
Accordingly, NPC and PSALM are ordered to immediately update the NPC
List and Computation in accordance with this decision and furnish the Supervising
Auditor (SA) a copy, and thereafter, schedule the payment to the entitled NPC
employees. NPC and PSALM are hereby directed to do the same with respect to the
attorney’s fees of Attys. Cornelio P. Aldon and Victoriano V. Orocio .
Attested by:
Copy furnished:
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 21/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
The President
National Power Corporation
BIR Road cor. Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
The President
Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation
BIR Road cor. Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
The Directors
Cluster 3, Corporate Government Sector
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 22/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
1 Pursuant to Section 1, Rule VIII, 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit (COA).
2 G.R. No. 156208, September 26, 2006.
3 Section 48, Republic Act No. 9136.
4 Separation Benefits of Officials and Employees of Affected Agencies. -National government employees
displaced or separated from the service as a result of the restructuring of the electricity industry and
privatization of NPC assets pursuant to this Act, shall be entitled to a separation pay and other benefits in
accordance with existing laws, rules or regulations. Displaced or separated personnel as a result of the
privatization, if qualified, shall be given preference in the hiring of the manpower requirements of the privatized
companies.
All employees of NPC affected by the passage of this Act shall be entitled to avail of the privileges provided
under the NPC separation plan existing as of January 1, 2001.
The salaries of employees of NPC shall continue to be exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 6758,
otherwise known as "The Salary Standardization Act".
With respect to employees who are not retained by NPC, the government, through the Department of Labor and
Employment, shall endeavor to implement re-training, job counseling, and job placement programs.
5 Supra , note 2.
6 National Power Board Resolution No. 2002-124 dated November 18, 2002.
7 Creation of Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation. -There is hereby created a
government owned and controlled corporation to be known as the "Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corporation", hereinafter referred to as the "PSALM Corp.", which shall take ownership of all
existing NPC generation assets, liabilities, IPP contracts, real estate and all other disposable assets. All
outstanding obligations of the National Power Corporation arising from loans, issuances of bonds, securities and
other instruments of indebtedness shall be transferred to and assumed by the PSALM Corp. within ninety (90)
days from the approval of this Act.
8 Ibid .
9 Purpose and Objective, Domicile and Term of Existence. -The principal purpose of the Corporation is to
manage the orderly sale, disposition, and privatization of NPC generation assets, real estate and other disposable
assets, and IPP contracts with the objective of liquidating all NPC financial obligations and stranded contract
costs in an optimal manner.
The Corporation shall have its principal office and place of business within Metro Manila.
The Corporation shall exist for a period of twenty five (25) years from the effectivity of this Act, unless
otherwise provided by law, and all assets held by it, all moneys and properties belonging to it, and all its
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 23/24
10/7/2019 COA DECISION NO. 2019-416
liabilities outstanding upon the expiration of its term of existence shall revert to and be assumed by the National
Government.
10 Supra, note 2.
11 G.R. No. 156556-57, October 4, 2011.
12 CPCN No. 2018-285
13 Ibid .
14 G.R. No. 171182, August 23, 2012.
15 COA Decision No. 2012-123 dated August 10, 2012, with subject: Money Claim of Ethel Brunty and Mr.
Juan Manuel M. Garcia Against the Philippine National Railways, for Payment of Damages Based on the
Supreme Court Ruling in Philippine National Railways vs. Ethel Brunty and Juan Manuel M. Garcia , G.R. No.
169891, November 2, 2006.
16 Ibid .
17 Supra , note 2.
18 An Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of
Government Reorganization.
19 Galang vs. Land Bank of the Philippines , G.R. No. 175276, May 31, 2011, citing Civil Service Commission
vs. Magnaye, Jr. , G.R. No. 183337, April 23, 2010.
20 Petition for Money Claim of Ms. Carmela C. Bautista, doing business under the name and style of Jeck
Construction, against the Municipal Government of Botolan, Zambales, for payment of work accomplished on
the construction of a covered court in San Miguel, Botolan, Zambales, amounting to P3,215,854.19, plus legal
interest and cost of suit.
21 No contract involving the expenditure of public funds shall be entered into unless there is an appropriation
therefor, the unexpended balance of which, free of other obligations, is sufficient to cover the proposed
expenditure.
22 Certificate showing appropriation to meet contract. Except in the case of a contract for personal service, for
supplies for current consumption or to be carried in stock not exceeding the estimated consumption for three
months, or banking transactions of government-owned or controlled banks, no contract involving the
expenditure of public funds by any government agency shall be entered into or authorized unless the proper
accounting official of the agency concerned shall have certified to the officer entering into the obligation that
funds have been duly appropriated for the purpose and that the amount necessary to cover the proposed contract
for the current fiscal year is available for expenditure on account thereof, subject to verification by the auditor
concerned. x x x.
23 G.R. No. L-12127, May 25, 1959.
24 Supra , note 2.
25 Ibid.
https://lia.coa.gov.ph/documents/15950?search_param=dama 24/24