EFREN L. BRACERO AND AFFECTED PCGG EMPLOYEES AS REPRESENTED BY ATTY. DENNYSON Q. CASTILLO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

Bracero versus Commission on Audit

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 brought by Efren L. Bracero and the affected employees of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, together with the members of the PCGG Employees Association, against the Commission on Audit. The petitioners challenge the Commission on Audit's Resolution dated December 7, 2023, which reversed an earlier ruling that had exempted the payees from refunding disallowed benefits and reinstated their liability to return the amounts they had received. The case matters because it is a study in the finality and immutability of judgments, in the limits of a government audit body's power to revisit its own final decision, and in the requisites for injunctive relief.

Procedural History

The controversy began when the Commission on Audit auditors issued Notices of Disallowance disallowing the grant of certain benefits to PCGG employees. The disallowance was affirmed by the Commission on Audit, National Government Sector, Cluster Four. The affected officers, including Bracero on behalf of the PCGG employees, filed petitions for review, which were consolidated. In its Decision dated July 4, 2019, the Commission on Audit partially granted the petitions, sustaining the disallowance but holding that the payees who received the disallowed benefits need not refund them, while the officers who signed the resolutions and approved or certified the disbursements remained liable.

Bracero and the petitioners did not appeal and did not move for reconsideration of that Decision. Only Lourdes G. Navarro, chief accountant, and Conrado L. Afable, administrative officer V, filed separate motions for reconsideration. On December 7, 2023, the Commission on Audit issued the assailed Resolution, which partially granted those motions, affirmed the disallowance, and modified the earlier ruling by making all employees who received the disallowed benefits liable for the amounts they received, with the approving, certifying, and authorizing officers solidarity liable for the net disallowed amount. From this Resolution, the petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 64 with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.

Facts

The petitioners are former and current employees of the Presidential Commission on Good Government. In 2012 and 2013, the Commission granted calamity assistance, gift checks, goodwill incentives, and Collective Negotiation Agreement incentives to its employees, including those under contract of service such as expense entitlement personnel and special legal counsels and consultants. These benefits were purportedly supported by several PCGG resolutions, including one authorizing a Collective Negotiation Agreement cash incentive of 25,000 pesos each to regular employees and 10,000 pesos each to special legal counsels and consultants, and others covering gift checks, calamity assistance, and goodwill incentives.

On November 27, 2013, the Commission on Audit auditors issued Notices of Disallowance disallowing the grant of these benefits, and the disallowance was affirmed by the National Government Sector, Cluster Four. The affected officers, including Bracero, filed petitions for review. In its Decision dated July 4, 2019, the Commission on Audit partially granted the petitions, sustaining the disallowance of the benefits in the total amount of 8,343,000 pesos, but ruling that the payees who received the disallowed benefits need not refund them, while the officers who signed the resolutions and approved or certified the disbursements remained liable. The disallowance rested on the absence of legal basis or specific appropriation, and on the rule that Collective Negotiation Agreement incentives may be granted only to rank-and-file employees.

The petitioners did not appeal or move for reconsideration of that Decision. Only Navarro and Afable filed motions for reconsideration. Navarro presented Undertakings which the payees had purportedly signed upon receiving the benefits, promising to refund the amounts in the event of a post-audit disallowance. On December 7, 2023, the Commission on Audit issued the assailed Resolution, retracting its earlier ruling and holding all employees who received the disallowed benefits liable to refund them. Hence, this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Resolution dated December 7, 2023.
• Whether or not there are sufficient grounds for the issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of Rule 10 of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit provides:

Section 9. Finality of Decisions or Resolutions. A decision or resolution of the Commission upon any matter within its jurisdiction shall become final and executory after the lapse of thirty (30) days from notice of the decision or resolution, unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably made or an appeal to the Supreme Court is filed.

This provision fixes the point at which the Commission's decision becomes final and executory, and it is the basis for the Court's holding that the Decision dated July 4, 2019 became final as to the petitioners.

Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts either for a limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.

This provision supplies the grounds for injunctive relief, which the Court found absent because the petitioners failed to establish a clear and existing right.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion. The petitioners did not appeal or move for reconsideration of the Decision dated July 4, 2019, and so that Decision became final and executory in its entirety as to them. The Court explained that a party cannot hold one aspect of a decision as final because it is beneficial, while rejecting the rest, especially when no partial appeal was taken. Under the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgment, a final decision may no longer be modified in any respect, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, subject only to the exceptions of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, and supervening events, none of which was present.

The Court also found a violation of due process. The Undertakings were new evidence introduced by Navarro and were the sole basis for reinstating the petitioners' liability, yet the petitioners were not given an opportunity to rebut or comment on them. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Incumbent and Former Employees of the National Economic and Development Authority Regional Office XIII versus Aguinaldo, where the Commission on Audit applied a new doctrine and unilaterally reinstated liability in a motion for reconsideration filed solely by the officers, which violated the right to due process. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Resolution insofar as it found the petitioners liable.

On the second issue, the Court denied the injunctive relief. The requisites for a writ of preliminary injunction are a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, a material and substantial invasion of that right, an urgent need to prevent irreparable injury, and the absence of any other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court held that the petitioners' exemption from refunding was contingent upon the ruling of the Court and thus not an actual, clear, and existing right. The disallowed amounts were quantifiable, so the injury was not irreparable, and an action for damages could adequately compensate any injury.

Doctrine

A decision of the Commission on Audit becomes final and executory after the lapse of thirty days from notice, unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably made or an appeal to the Supreme Court is filed. A party who does not appeal or move for reconsideration cannot later attack one portion of that decision while claiming the benefit of another portion; the decision becomes final in its entirety as to that party. Under the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgment, a final decision is immutable and unalterable, subject only to the exceptions of clerical errors, nunc pro tunc entries, void judgments, and supervening events. Where the Commission on Audit relies on new evidence in a motion for reconsideration filed by another party to reinstate the liability of payees who did not appeal, those payees must be given an opportunity to rebut the evidence, or their right to due process is violated. Finally, a writ of preliminary injunction requires a clear and existing legal right, a material and substantial invasion of that right, urgency to prevent irreparable injury, and the absence of another adequate remedy; a contingent right and a quantifiable injury will not support the writ.

Disposition

The petition for certiorari is partly granted. The Decision dated July 4, 2019 of the Commission on Audit is rendered final and executory insofar as the petitioners are concerned, and the Resolution dated December 7, 2023 is set aside insofar as it found the petitioners liable for the disallowed PCGG benefits, while the prayer for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction is denied for lack of merit.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a party cannot split a final judgment, taking the benefit of one part while attacking the rest, and the Commission on Audit cannot unilaterally reinstate the liability of payees who did not appeal without giving them a chance to rebut new evidence. Examiners use this case to test the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgment, the requisites of a writ of preliminary injunction, and the due process limits on a government audit body's power to revisit its own final decision.