The Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Disallowance disallowing P56.5 million in benefits granted to employees of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC). PHIC appealed, arguing it had fiscal autonomy to determine employee compensation under the National Health Insurance Act. COA affirmed the disallowance, finding PHIC's power was not absolute and required presidential approval. It also found the employees liable for lack of good faith as the benefits had been previously disallowed. The Supreme Court ruled that COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disallowance, as COA has constitutional authority to rule on legality of government fund disbursements. It is also the policy of
The Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Disallowance disallowing P56.5 million in benefits granted to employees of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC). PHIC appealed, arguing it had fiscal autonomy to determine employee compensation under the National Health Insurance Act. COA affirmed the disallowance, finding PHIC's power was not absolute and required presidential approval. It also found the employees liable for lack of good faith as the benefits had been previously disallowed. The Supreme Court ruled that COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disallowance, as COA has constitutional authority to rule on legality of government fund disbursements. It is also the policy of
The Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Disallowance disallowing P56.5 million in benefits granted to employees of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC). PHIC appealed, arguing it had fiscal autonomy to determine employee compensation under the National Health Insurance Act. COA affirmed the disallowance, finding PHIC's power was not absolute and required presidential approval. It also found the employees liable for lack of good faith as the benefits had been previously disallowed. The Supreme Court ruled that COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disallowance, as COA has constitutional authority to rule on legality of government fund disbursements. It is also the policy of
PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, RESPONDENTS. LOPEZ, J., J. PROBLEM: In 2013, COA issued a Notice of Disallowance (ND) disallowing the payment of different benefits granted to employees of PHIC amounting to P56.5 million. Aggrieved, PHIC filed an appeal with the COA-Corporate Gov’t Cluster saying that such payments are covered by its fiscal autonomy under the National Health Insurance Act. The COA-CGS affirmed the disallowance saying that the power granted by the Act to PHIC in determining the compensation structure of its employees is not absolute; there must first be approval of the President. It also affirmed the liability of the employees for lack of good faith as such benefits were already disallowed in audit for lack of legal basis as early as 2009. COA-Commission Proper likewise affirmed the same. Whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in COA’s part. ANSWER: No. COA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in affirming the assailed ND. COA's general audit power is "among the constitutional mechanisms that give life to the check and balance system inherent in our form of government.” This authority to rule on the legality of the disbursement of government funds finds force in Section 2, Article IX- D of the 1987 Constitution. There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism. It is the general policy of the Court to sustain the factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, such as the COA. In the absence of a substantial showing that such findings were made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed.
G.R. No. 182358: February 20, 2013 Department of Health, The Secretary of Health, and Ma. Margarita M. GALON, Petitioners, V .PHIL PHARMAWEALTH, INC., Respondent. Del Castillo, J.