Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Coa Decision 2020-234
Coa Decision 2020-234
Coa Decision 2020-234
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR
RTMEN OF TOU
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
ON 3rd Floor JB Building. 351 Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave, Makati City
Tel. No. 459-5200 loc. 320/321322
November 2, 2021
Attention:
Mr. Roman G. Bersamira
Chief Acountant
Subject: cOA Decision No. 2020-234 re: Notice of Disallowance No. 12-010-TLA-
(10-11) dated June 29, 2012 on the grant of financial sponsorship assistance
to the Policy Research Information Strategy and Media Services, Inc., in the
amount ofP10,000,000.00
This is to respectfully furnish you copy of the COA Decision No. 2020 -
234 dated January 30, 2020 which denied the Petition for Review of Ms. Violeta P.
Florentino, et al., all of the Department of Tourism for having been filed out of time
and for lack of merit. Accordingly, COA NGS - Cluster 7 Decision No. 2015-005
dated February 16, 2015, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance No. 12-010-TLA
(10-11) dated June 29, 2012, on the grant of financial sponsorship assistance to the
Policy Research Information Strategy and Media Services, Inc., in the amount of
P10,000,000.00 is AFFIRMED by the Commission Proper pursuant to COA
Decision No. 2020-234.
VIRGINIAM. AAsON
OIC-Supervisirng Additor
DOT Audit Group
ASSIOvo
ONAUD
Republic of the Bhilippines
/
cOMMISSION ON AUDIT
NILDA B. PLARAS
Director v
Commission Secretaria
already filed out of time, the petitioners should have filed the Petition for Review
on the day following the receipt of the CD's decision, at the latest. In fact, the
petitioners used a total of 235 days from the receipt of the ND to file this Petition
for Review.
Thus, the Petition for Review was filed out of time pursuant to Section 3,
Rule VIl of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure, which reads:
Since the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period for appeal, the
assailed decision has become final and executory pursuant to Section 22.1 of the
Rules and Regulations on the Settlement of Acounts, viz:
AE
G.R. No. 198357, December1opo12.
Corporation) vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, the Supreme Court ruled
that:
Even if the petition is to be decided on its merits, the same would still be
denied. The petitioners failed to comply with the terms and conditions as stated in
the Memorandum of Agreement for the disbursement of the FSA. Moreover, the
other arguments presented by the petitioners were mere rehash of those that were
already passed upon in the assailed decision. Thus, the disallowance is proper.
MICHAELG. ÀGUINALDO
hairperson
NILDA B. PLARASS
Director IV
'G.R. No. 161282, February 23, 2011. Commission Secretariat
3
Copy furnished:
ESZ/SUVNHP/RMtbG
CPASSSO-08-18-2018100483/321