The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission on Audit’s (COA) authority to discipline erring personnel and recover disallowed benefits received from government agencies. In this case, the Court upheld the COA’s decision to suspend and order the refund of unauthorized allowances and car loan benefits received by State Auditor II Annaliza J. Galindo and State Auditing Examiner II Evelinda P. Pinto from the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) and its Employees Welfare Fund (MEWF). This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining the independence and integrity of COA officials, reinforcing the principle that public office is a public trust.

When Perks Become Pitfalls: Can COA Auditors Accept Benefits from Audited Agencies?

The case of Galindo and Pinto v. Commission on Audit revolves around the administrative liabilities of COA personnel assigned to the MWSS who received bonuses, allowances, and car loan benefits from the MWSS and MEWF. An investigation revealed that these benefits were facilitated through unrecorded cash advances and a car assistance program, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and violations of ethical standards for public officials. The central legal question is whether these COA employees violated regulations prohibiting the receipt of additional compensation from the agencies they audit, and whether the COA acted within its authority in imposing sanctions and ordering the refund of these benefits.

The facts of the case began with a letter from the MWSS Administrator to the COA Chairman, detailing irregularities in the handling of cash advances intended for COA personnel assigned to MWSS. The letter alleged that these cash advances were used to pay claims for bonuses and other benefits without proper documentation or adherence to standard procedures. This prompted the COA to conduct a fact-finding investigation, which revealed that COA-MWSS personnel had received substantial amounts of money in allowances and bonuses from MWSS cash advances, as well as benefits from the MEWF car assistance plan.

Specifically, State Auditor II Annaliza J. Galindo and State Auditing Examiner II Evelinda P. Pinto were implicated in receiving unauthorized allowances from the cash advances of MWSS Supervising Cashier Iris C. Mendoza. Further, they both availed themselves of the MEWF’s car assistance plan, which provided substantial fringe benefits in the form of subsidized car loans. Pinto was also found to have received additional benefits and bonuses from the MWSS based on Indices of Payments covering several years. These findings led to administrative charges against Galindo and Pinto for Grave Misconduct and Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations.

In its decision, the COA found Galindo and Pinto guilty based on substantial evidence, including documentary evidence and testimonies. The COA emphasized that the standard of proof in administrative cases is **substantial evidence**, defined as that amount of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The COA ruled that the circumstances surrounding Mendoza’s cash advances, coupled with her testimony and the documentary evidence, sufficiently established that Galindo and Pinto had illegally received bonuses and benefits.

The COA also rejected Galindo and Pinto’s defense that their availment of the CAP-MEWF was legitimate because they were bona fide members of the MEWF. The COA argued that the funds managed by the MEWF remained public funds and that the car loan contracts constituted a grant of fringe benefits prohibited under COA Memorandum No. 89-584 and Section 18 of Republic Act No. 6758 (R.A. No. 6758). This law clearly prohibits COA personnel from receiving additional compensation from any government entity, except those paid directly by the COA itself. To further understand the context, Section 18 of R.A. No. 6758 states:

Section 18. Additional Compensation of Commission on Audit Personnel and of Other Agencies. – In order to preserve the independence and integrity of the Commission on Audit (COA), its officials and employees are prohibited from receiving salaries, honoraria, bonuses, allowances or other emoluments from any government entity, local government unit, and government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial institution, except those compensation paid directly by the COA out of its appropriations and contributions.

The COA also cited jurisprudence defining misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The COA found that the misconduct in this case was grave due to the element of corruption, defined as an official unlawfully using their station or character to procure some benefit for themselves or another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. This alignment of facts with legal definitions further bolstered the COA’s decision.

The Supreme Court upheld the COA’s decision, emphasizing that the proper remedy in administrative disciplinary cases decided by the COA is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission, not a petition for certiorari before the Court under Rule 64. The Court pointed out that Section 7, Article IX-A of the Constitution provides that decisions of constitutional commissions may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law. In this case, the Administrative Code of 1987 provided for the Civil Service Commission’s appellate jurisdiction in administrative disciplinary cases.

The Court further noted that Galindo and Pinto failed to allege and show that the COA acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. A petition for certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal, and the imputed errors in the COA’s appreciation of facts and evidence are proper subjects of an appeal. Building on this principle, the Supreme Court reiterated its limited power to review COA decisions, stating that it only extends to legal issues in administrative matters, not factual ones.

Even if the petition for certiorari had been properly raised and filed within the reglementary period, the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COA’s decision. The Court emphasized that the evidence presented against Galindo and Pinto was substantial enough to justify the finding of their administrative liability. It affirmed the principle that recipients of unauthorized sums often evade traces of their receipt, making it appropriate to resort to other documents from which such fact could be deduced. It is important to note that this decision reinforces the stringent expectations placed on public servants in handling public funds.

Moreover, the Supreme Court cited its previous ruling in Nacion v. Commission on Audit, a related case involving another COA-MWSS officer, where it underscored the prohibition enunciated in Section 18 of R.A. No. 6758. The Court reiterated that COA officials need to be insulated from unwarranted influences to properly perform their constitutional mandate, and the removal of the temptation and enticement that extra emoluments may provide is designed to ensure their independence and integrity. This serves as a potent reminder to all COA officials about maintaining ethical conduct and avoiding any appearance of impropriety. In doing so, they enhance public trust in their role and in the audit process.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether COA personnel could receive bonuses, allowances, and car loan benefits from the government agencies they audited, specifically the MWSS and its MEWF, without violating regulations and ethical standards for public officials. The case also examined whether the COA acted within its authority by imposing sanctions and ordering refunds.
What is “substantial evidence” in administrative cases?	Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. It’s a lower standard of proof than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (criminal cases) or “preponderance of evidence” (civil cases), focusing on whether the evidence is persuasive and credible.
What is Grave Misconduct?	Grave Misconduct is a serious transgression of established rules by a public officer, involving unlawful behavior or gross negligence. It often includes elements of corruption or a willful intent to violate the law.
Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the petition?	The Supreme Court dismissed the petition because the proper remedy for appealing a COA decision in an administrative disciplinary case is to appeal to the Civil Service Commission, not to file a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court. Additionally, the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period.
What does Section 18 of R.A. No. 6758 prohibit?	Section 18 of R.A. No. 6758 prohibits COA officials and employees from receiving salaries, honoraria, bonuses, allowances, or other emoluments from any government entity, local government unit, and government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial institutions, except those compensation paid directly by the COA. This is to preserve the independence and integrity of the COA.
What was the basis for the COA’s order to refund?	The COA ordered the refund based on findings that Galindo and Pinto had received unauthorized allowances from MWSS cash advances and had improperly benefited from the MEWF’s car assistance plan. The COA determined that these benefits were illegal and violated relevant regulations.
What is the significance of COA Memorandum No. 89-584?	COA Memorandum No. 89-584 prohibits the grant of fringe benefits to COA personnel assigned in national, local, and corporate sectors. It aims to prevent conflicts of interest and maintain the independence of COA auditors.
What is a petition for certiorari?	A petition for certiorari is a legal remedy used to review the decisions of lower courts or quasi-judicial bodies, such as the COA. It is generally based on allegations that the lower court or body acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.

This case reinforces the critical importance of maintaining ethical standards and preventing conflicts of interest within the Commission on Audit. The ruling serves as a clear warning to COA officials and employees that they must avoid accepting any form of compensation or benefit from the government agencies they audit. By upholding the COA’s disciplinary powers and its authority to recover unlawfully received benefits, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that public office is a public trust, emphasizing the need for accountability and integrity in the performance of official duties.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Galindo and Pinto v. COA, G.R. No. 210788, January 10, 2017