Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 445 views

    Tesda Vs Coa

    Uploaded by

    lucky javellana
    The COA properly exercised its constitutional authority to audit government expenditures and disallow irregular payments when it issued a notice of disallowance for TESDA's payment of a P5,000 healthcare maintenance allowance to its employees. While the allowance was authorized by an administrative order, the COA determined it had no legal basis under the Salary Standardization Law. As the guardian of public funds, the COA has broad discretion to prevent unauthorized uses of funds and define the scope of its audits. The Supreme Court upheld that the COA acted within its jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tesda Vs Coa

    Uploaded by

    lucky javellana
    445 views2 pages
    The COA properly exercised its constitutional authority to audit government expenditures and disallow irregular payments when it issued a notice of disallowance for TESDA's payment of a P5,000 healthcare maintenance allowance to its employees. While the allowance was authorized by an administrative order, the COA determined it had no legal basis under the Salary Standardization Law. As the guardian of public funds, the COA has broad discretion to prevent unauthorized uses of funds and define the scope of its audits. The Supreme Court upheld that the COA acted within its jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Tesda vs Coa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The COA properly exercised its constitutional authority to audit government expenditures and disallow irregular payments when it issued a notice of disallowance for TESDA's payment of a P5,000 healthcare maintenance allowance to its employees. While the allowance was authorized by an administrative order, the COA determined it had no legal basis under the Salary Standardization Law. As the guardian of public funds, the COA has broad discretion to prevent unauthorized uses of funds and define the scope of its audits. The Supreme Court upheld that the COA acted within its jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    445 views2 pages

    Tesda Vs Coa

    Uploaded by

    lucky javellana
    The COA properly exercised its constitutional authority to audit government expenditures and disallow irregular payments when it issued a notice of disallowance for TESDA's payment of a P5,000 healthcare maintenance allowance to its employees. While the allowance was authorized by an administrative order, the COA determined it had no legal basis under the Salary Standardization Law. As the guardian of public funds, the COA has broad discretion to prevent unauthorized uses of funds and define the scope of its audits. The Supreme Court upheld that the COA acted within its jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Lucky Javellana

    Jurisdiction

    The Case: TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY


    (TESDA), Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT; CHAIRMAN REYNALDO
    A. VILLAR; COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR.; AND COMMISSIONER
    EVELYN R. SAN BUENAVENTURA, Respondents. G.R. No. 196418, February
    10, 2015

    Facts: The TESDA, an instrumentality of the Government established under


    Republic Act No. 7796, is an attached agency of the Department of Labor and
    Employment (DOLE). In view of the inadequate policy on basic health and
    safety conditions of work experienced by government personnel, then DOLE
    Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas issued Administrative Order authorizing the
    payment of healthcare maintenance allowance of P5,000.00 to all officials and
    employees of the DOLE, including its bureaus and attached agencies. AO No.
    430 was purportedly based on Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular
    and Section 34 of the General Provisions of the 2003 General Appropriations
    Act.
    Upon post-audit, COA State Auditor IV Rosemarie A. Valenzuela issued
    AOM and later endorsed the matter to the COA Director of the LAO-National for
    appropriate legal action.
    Atty. Rebecca Mislang, Officer In-Charge of the COA LAO-National,
    subsequently issued Notice of Disallowance addressed to then TESDA Director
    General Augusto Syjuco, indicating that the payment of the allowance had no
    legal basis, it being contrary to Republic Act No. 6758 (Salary Standardization
    Law of 1989).

    Issue. Is the issuance of disallowance notice by COA correct?

    Held. Yes, the COA did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
    grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because it
    properly exercised its powers and discretion in disallowing the payment of the
    P5,000.00 as healthcare maintenance allowance.
    The COA is endowed with latitude to determine, prevent, and disallow
    irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures
    of government funds. It has the power to ascertain whether public funds were
    utilized for the purpose for which they had been intended by law. The
    Constitution has made the COA “the guardian of public funds, vesting it with
    broad powers over all accounts pertaining to government revenue and
    expenditures and the uses of public funds and property, including the
    exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish
    the techniques and methods for such review, and promulgate accounting and
    auditing rules and regulations.” Thus, the COA is generally accorded complete
    discretion in the exercise of its constitutional duty and responsibility to
    examine and audit expenditures of public funds, particularly those which are
    perceptibly beyond what is sanctioned by law.

    Doctrine learned. As an administrative office the COA has expertise as to the


    laws they are entrusted to enforce. It is within their discretion whether or not it
    is proper to issue a notice of disallowance.

    You might also like