·epuhlic of tbe tlbilippines

~upreme Qtourt
;fflllanila

ENBANC

ROLANDO S. GRE I ORIO, G.R. No. 240778

Petitioner,
Present:

PERALTA, C.J.,
PERLAS-BERN BE,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,
GESMUNDO,
- versu: - J. REYES, JR.,
HERNANDO,
CARANDANG,
LA:ZARO-JAVI :
INTING,
ZALAMEDA,
LOPEZ,
DELOS SANTO , and
GAERLAN,JJ
COMMISSION ON UDIT AND f
DEPARTMENT OF OREIGN
AFFAIRS 1 Promulgated:
Respondents. June 30 ' 20 ; O.,

x---------------------------------------------------------------------11

DECISION

CARANDANG, J.:

Challenged in t 1· s Petition for Certiorari 1 under Ru f 64 in relation to

Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the Decision2 dated Febrtfary 28, 2017 and
Resolution3 dated Mar •h 8, 2018 of the Commission onAudh (COA)EnBanc
in COA CP Case No. 2015-436 & 437. 4 The COA deniJ~ the Petition for
Money Claims filed b petitioner Rolando S. Gregorio forlpayment of salary
and additional compe sation; and Overseas Allowance a ,i Living Quarters

q
Rollo, pp. 3-15.
2
Id. at 17-23.
3
See id. at 31.
4
Id. at 4.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 240778

Allowance for the peri9d from January 1, 2005 to June 17, 2105, in the amount
of Pl 19,487.50 and Pl,921,659.70, respectively, or a total amount of
5 I
f'2,041,147.20. !

Rolando S. Gregorio (petitioner), Chief of Missi9n Class II of the

Department ofForeignlAffairs (DFA), was the fonner Con~ul General of the
Philippine Consulate Gleneral (PCG) of Honolulu, Hawaii ~~til his retirement
on April 17, 2004, at thle age of 65. Upon his request, his ~~vernment service
was extended four tim~s beyond his compulsory age of retiement, to wit: ( 1)
from April 18 to June BO, 2004; (2) from July 1 to Septerrlber 30, 2004; (3)
from October 1 to 31, 2004; and (4) from November 1 to Dcibember 31, 2004. 6

The request for extension of services of petitioner for the period of

November 1, 2004 to 9ecember 31, 2004 was approved on.'fOctober 29, 2004.
Pursuant to the said fpproval, DFA Secretary Alberto ; Romulo (DF A I •

Secretary Romulo) iss1ed Assignment Order No. 42-04 sta ing that: 7

The tour of duty of Consul General ROLJO S.

GREGORI 1 at the Philippine Consulate GilI1eral,
,

Honolulu, if hereby finally extended from 01 Octobe! 2004

to 31 December 2004 with no further extenk on. 8
(Underscor"ng supplied)

Starting January 2005 and onwards, documents, sue as payrolls, of the

PCG were signed by Consul Eva G. Betita (Consul Be ita). Nonetheless,
petitioner claimed th t after the expiration of his servic9 on December ,31,
2004, he continued io serve as Consul General startin.]• January 1, 2005
onwards. ·I

In a Letter 9 dated March 22, 2005, the DFA of lcially designated

Consul Betita as Actint Head of Post of Honolulu pursuant to the directive of
1

then Undersecretary I for Administration, Franklin , Ebdalin (DF A

Undersecretary Ebdalt). The letter was received by CO TEL on April 1,
2005. It reads: J..
· To : H9nolulu PCG
Fr : U~ME/OP AS
Re : Ms. Eva G. Betita, Acting Head of Post
Dt : 22jMarch 2005
Cn : Hr-39-UFME-2005

Following ~e end of the approved extension of servir. es of

designated r
Consul Rola!·ndo Gregorio on 31 December 2004, e~fective
01 January 2005, Consul Eva G. Betita, FSO I, is ereby
Acting Head of Post_IO
1

- __
5
I_d_.a-t-17--2-3,-3-1.----'I-
Id. at 5.
Id. at 6.
Id.
9
Id. at 3;2.
IO
Id.
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 240778

On April 21, 2 05, DFA Secretary Romulo, throug a Memorandum

for the President, recommended that the request of petition!Jr for extension of
government service until June 30, 2005 be approved. 11 Ontay 23, 2005, the
DFA received a Meniorandum dated May 19, 2005 fr, m the Executive

ofhis successor, whicter is earlier." 12 ~

1
~l
Secretary approving pJtitioner's extension of services as I onsul General of
!

the Philippine Consulaie in Honolulu "until June 30, 2005 r until the arrival

On June 10, 20~5, DFA Secretary Romulo issued very urgent andi

confidential Letter 13 instructing petitioner to return to Ho I e Office by June

I
13, 2005 and to file thj~ appropriate leaves for the days hr• was absent from
work from January 20 5. 14

In a• Memoran~um 15 dated October 18, 2005, ~: sistant Secretary

Ophelia A. Gonzales, CDffice of the Personnel and Adminis~rative Services of
the DF A requested froili the Assistant Secretary of Fiscal A{airs, the payment
of unpaid salaries and lllowances of petitioner for the ap_pto ved extension of
his services as Consul fbeneral from January 1, 2005 to Ju e 30, 2005. 16 The
1
1

Memorandum further s ated that:

In ine with our request, enclosed, for your

appropriate ction, are copies each of the following:

1. Certific te of Last Payment x x x

xxxx

6. Approvedl Leave of Absence for the period from O April

· 2005 to 30 june 2005. 17

On July 15, 2011, after almost 10 years, petitioner led two Petitions
for Money Claim 18 bbfore respondent COA for paymJht of salary and
additional compensatibn; and Overseas Allowance andl ]Living Quarters
Allowance, for the peribd of January 1, 2005 to June 17, 2005 in the amounts
of Pl 19, 487.50 and Pl,921,659.70, respectively, or a total amount of
P2,041,147.20. The c ses were docketed as COA CP Cas No. 2015-436 to
437. 19

In its Answer d ted October 28, 2015, respondent, FA, through the
Office of the Solicitot General (OSG), prayed that thel money claim of
petitioner be denied onl the following grounds, to wit: ( 1) titioner rendered
actual service and reported for work, pursuant to appro ed extensions of
service beyond his agk of retirement, until December 3 , 2004 only; (2)

lf
II
Id. at 18.
12
Id. at 101-102.
13
Id. at 41.
14
Id.
15
Id. at 42.
16
Id.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 102
19
Id. at 4.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 240778

petitioner neither assumed nor continued to hold office fro January to June
17, 20_05, con~ideri~g ! that t~e requisite approval of the. 1Pres_ide1:t for the
I

extens10n of his service was ISsued only on May 19, 200~ which 1s beyond
the allowed m~ximu~i extension of one year; and (3) th9leffectivit~- of t~e
Memorandum mformmg the DFA of the approval of extension ofpetit10n~r s
services until June 30,1 . . 2005 cannot be made to apply oJI January 1, 2005
considering that Sectioh 3 of Executive Order No. 136,20 s.clties of 1999 (E.O.
No. 136) is explicit thdt a compulsory retired officer can 1~ither assume nor
continue in office withbut receipt of the requisite authority r
1·

The Audit Team Lader of the DFA, Pasay City agre , with respondent ~
DFA. On the other hatjd, the Cluster Director, Cluster 1 -Executive Offices,
National Government I Sector (NGS) of the COA recorlimended that the
Petition for Money Clafm of petitioner be given due c?urse lfn th~ ground that
the approval of Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita (Executive Secretary
Ermita) of· the extens1· on of service of petitioner as arlj exemption from
Executive Order (EO) No. 136 renders the DFA's oppoJ tion to the claim

~
based on Sections 1, 3 and 4 of EO No. 136 ineffective. She ruled that the
designation of Consul Betita as Acting Head of Po_st _of . ?no:ulu effective
January 1, 2005 by the DFA Undersecretary Ebdalm 1s v 1d smce the latter
1

had no authority to desrgnate Consul Betita. 22

In a Decision23 dated February 28, 2017, COA den·: d the petition for
1

money clai_ms filed bjr petitioner. The dispositive portipI of the decision
states, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the P~ itions

for Money I Claim of Mr. Rolando S. Gregorio, :fbrmer
Consul Gelieral, Philippine Consulate General, Hm~blulu,
· Hawaii, for !payment of salary and additional compen~1ation;
and Oversdts Allowance and Living Quarters AlloTT 1ance, 1

I '
for the peripd of January 1, 2005 to June 17, 2005 in the
amounts of Pl 19,487.50 and Pl,921,659.70, respectiVjJly, or
a total amopnt of P2,041,147.20, are hereby DENI: D for
lack of mer't. 24 (Emphasis in the original)

In denying the petition, the COA ruled that the money claim of
petitioner is devoid of merit based on the following grou~1,J[s. First, Section
3 ofE.O. No. 136 pro+des that any officer or employee rel'-uesting retention
in the service shall not be allowed to assume or continue ~n office pending
receipt of authority froin the Office of the President. The 9OA noted that the
approved extension urltil June 30, 2005 pertains to the rebommendation of
DP A Secretary Romul? that the request of petitioner for eltension until June
30, 2005 be.granted. }lowever, said request was made oniyl bn April 21, 2005
and its approval was cbmmunicated in a Memorandum d. ed May 19, 2005

'" Requiring Pn,;idential lpproval of Requests foe Extension of Secvices O residential Appointees
Beyond the Compulsory R tirement Age.
21
Rollo, p. 19.
22
Id. at 19-20.
23
Supra note 2.
24
Rollo, p. 22.
Decision I 5 G.R. No. 240778

I
of the Executive Secre~ary, which was received by the DF only on May 23,
2005. The COA ruled I that petitioner cannot assume or dpntinue in office
pendi1:g receip~ of authprity fr~m the Office of the ~resideif and absent such
authority, peht10ner cannot claun benefit for the penod fro January 1, 2005
to June 30, 2005. 25 I
I

Second, Sectionl 4 of E.O. No. 136 allows extensi of government I

service beyond the mahdatory age of retirement for a ma imum of one (1) I

year only. The COA no~Ied that at the time.the request for ext ension of service
was made on April 21, 2005, it was already beyond the m~ximum period of
one (1) year fr_om Apr~l ~ 7, 2004. In t?e Memora~dum ftf
t?~n Exe_cutive
Secretary Ermita apprrvmg the extens10n of service ofjfetlt10ner, 1t was
expressly stated that PEttitioner's extension was until June fO,
2005, or until
the anival of his succe~sor, whichever is earlier. It specifi 1ally states, to wit:
I I I

PleasJ be advised that upon your recommendatiln, as

. an exemptidn to Executive Order No. 136 (series of ~1999),
the Presiderit has APPROVED the extension of senrice of
Consul Getleral ROLANDO S. GREGORIO, CH~ef of
Mission Cliss II, of the Philippine Consulate GenJta1 in
Honolulu, ~awaii, Department of Foreign Affairs, ldJyond
d
the compul~ory retirement age, until June 30, 2005, until
I

the arrival of his successor, whichever is earlier. 26 (Em ,hasis

and underscpring in the original)
i

Third, Section 2 if the same provision states that offi ,ials or employees
who have reached the I compulsory retirement age of 65 Nears shall not be
1

retained in the service,! except for exemplary meritorious. fieasons. Here, the
COAnoted that no doc{nnents were presented to showthat~eltitioner's service
was retained due to etcemplary meritorious reasons. Th1 COA found that
petitioner's money cliiim is not supported with proof , f actual services
rendered. 27 ·

Petitioner mDved lfor reconsideration but was denied by the COA in a

Resolution28 dated Math
8, 2018.

Hence, petitioner ,._iled the present petlt10n asserting t t:

THE- coJ~MISSION ON AUDIT ERRED A

QUESTIOl'f- OF LAW IN DENYING THE PETITIO~ FOR
dL
MONEY CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT PETIT! NER 1

DID NOT jRENDER ACTUAL SERVICES FOR THE

PERIOD OF JANUARY I, 2005 UP TO JlJNE 17 2005
CONSfDE$NG THAT CONSUL EVA G. BETITA AS
' DEStGNAIED TO THE POSTW

J_
25
Id. at 20-2. 1 I
26 I
Id. at 110.
27
Id. at2L .I
28
Supra note 3.
29
Rollo, p. 8.

I •

I
Decision 6 G.R. No. 240778

I
Petitioner maint~ins that, contrary to the findings of the COA, he
actually rendered servipe as the Consul General of the Ph~ ippine Consulate
in Honolulu from Jaquary 1, 2005 until June 10, 200 in a hold-over 1
'

capacity. 30 Petitioner fuj'rther contends that the designatiorll of Consul Betita_

is void because it was lssued by DFA Undersecretary Ebdklin, who had no
authority to designate Her. He asserts that the extension ofjll Foreign Service
Officer must be appro~ed by the President. It necessarily follows that the
I
designation of a Foreigh Service Officer must emanate fro the President or,
at the very least, must I carry with it the imprimatur of tr~I Secretary of the
DFA, being an alter ego of the President. Moreover, petitioher points out that
the designation of Con~ul Betita is dated March 22, 2005,~nd was officially
received only on Apri] 1, 2005. Therefore, it cannot retrJrct to January 1,
2005, hence, the DF~'s insistence that Consul Betita ~ssumed office as
Acting Head of Post tjf PCG, Honolulu on January 1, 2(])p5 is incorrect. 31
Petitioner also claims tpat he is entitled to extension pursufnt to Section 2 of
EO No. 136 considering his exemplary services as e}idenced by his
commendations and 1tations. '. 2 La~t!y, pe~tioner asserjs that under the
doctrine of quantum mi ruzt, he IS entitled to Ins money claws, 33

In the Commen~34 filed by respondents COA and J;::pF A, through the

OSG, they maintain that petitioner did not discharge the fu~ction of a Consul
1,
General from January 2005 in a hold-over capacity sinc!I respondent DF A
designated ,Consul Betita as Acting Head of Post of Hbnolulu effective
January 1, 2005; and that petitioner is not entitled to any lralary, allowance
and other compensatiof as Consul General for the said ~teriod considering
that the requisite approival of the President for the extensio~ of his service of
his service was neither :given nor issued. 35 ! !

11
I
I

The main issue to be resolved is whether petitione is entitled to theI

payment of his money biaims.

I
I Ruling of the Court
I

I
I
The petition is partially granted.
I
I
Prefa,torily, we nlote that the Constitution vests the b loadest latitude in
the COA in dischargin~ its role as the guardian of public fuhds and properties
by granting it "exclusiye authority, subject to the limitati9hs in this Article,
to define the scope of ifs audit and examination, establish t~e techniques and
methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and ltuditing rules and
regulations, including tose for the prevention and disallmi1ance of irregular;
unnecessary, excessive!, extravagant, or unconscionable ex •enditures or uses
of goven1ment funds a d properties. 36
30
Id. at 10-11.
31
Id. at 8-10.
32
Id.atll-12. 1
33
Id. at 12-13. 1

34
Id.at102-114. 1

35
Id. at 109.
36 1
Miralle,s v. Commission on Audit, 818 Phil. 380, 390-391 (2017).

I
I
I
I
Decision 7 G.R. No. 240778
I

I
In recognition o~ such constitutional empowermen, of the COA, the
Court has generally su~tained COA's decisions or resoluti9ns in deference to
its expertise in the implfmentation of the laws it has been e~~rusted to enforce.
Only when the COA has clearly acted without or in excess of jurisdiction has
the Court intervened t9 correct the COA's decisions or r~srlutions. For th.is
purpose, grave abuse of discretion means that there is on t~J part of the COA
an evasion of a positivb duty or a virtual refusal to perfo9f a duty enjoined
by law or to act in contemplation of law, such as when the lassailed decision ·

or resolution rendered lis not based on law and the eviden e but on caprice,
1

whim and despotism. 37 1

In this case, w~I find that the COA overlooked I ertain facts and
evidence which can a'ct the outcome of petitioner's monry claim.

Petitioner claim$ payment of his salary and other lmpensation and

overseas allowance an4
living quarters for the period from ianuary 1, 2005 to
I

June 30, 2005, when his services as Consul of the PCG of Honolulu was
extended beyond his c1mpulsory retirement.

Petitioner beingja Presidential appointee, the pertin nt law, E.O. No.

1

136, s. 1999 or the 1 w Requiring Presidential ApprovaJ of Requests for

Extension of Services I of Presidential Appointees Beyon , the Compulsory
Retirement Age, is appllicable. To quote:
I
, Section 1. I The President shall approve the exte sion of
services of Presideritial appointees beyond the compulsory retirement
age, only upon r~commendation by the concerned DeJ~~ment
Secretary, unless ~therwise provided by law. The exteJ ion of
services of non-Preiidential appointees shall be subject to the proval t
of the Civil Servictb Commission, only upon the recommend~tion of
the concerned Deplrtment Secretary and in accordance to E¼ecutive
Order No. 292, ot~e~ise known as "The Administrative ffode of
1987" and other ex stmg laws. l,I

Section 2. Officials or employees who have reaclhed the

service, except for 6xemplary meritorious reasons.

I
I '
Section 3. t11Y officer or employee requesting for ret • tion in
the service shall n.ot be allowed to assume or continue i~! office
1

pending receipt of ~uthority from the Office of the President.

. I
I
Section 4. µpon approval of the President, the first,e ,tension
of services for Presidential appointees shall be for six (6) moJths, and
subsequently for dsecond extension of six (6) months,, 11r for a
maximum extensiofl of one (1) year only.
I
XXXX I

I I

37
Secretary Montejo v,_ tommission on Audit, G.R. No. 232272, July 24, 2j 18.

I Ii
. I

Decision 8 G.R. No. 240778

I

Relatedly, Section123 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7157, otherwise known

as the Philippine Forei~n Service Act of 1991 provides:
I
I

Part C. Provisions of General Application to AU Officers

Section 23 .1 Compulsory Retirements. - All office s and

1

employees of the D~partment who have reached the age o sixty-

five (65) shall be coihpulsorily and automatically retired fr~m the
Service: provided, l~owever, that all incumbent non-career clilliefs of
mission who are seventy (70) years old and above shall continue! to hold
office until June 30, j1992, unless sooner removed by the apn©inting
authority. Non-career, appointees who shall serve beyond th;I [age of
sixty-five (65) years shall be entitled to retirement benefits. (erliphasis
ours) i 11

I I I
In order to detenbine whether petitioner is entitled tf the payment of
his salary and other mbney claims, we need to ascertain fhe following: 1)
whether petitioner's extension of service beyond his comprlsory retirement
was authorized and apfiroved by the Office of the Presidenf and 2) whether
petitioner had actually Jerved as Consul General for the pet·od from January
I
1, 2005 to June 30, 2005.
. I

After an assid~ous review of the records, we agree with the

recommendation of the ICluster Director, Cluster 1 - Execu ive Offices, NOS
1

of COA that the moqey claims of petitioner be given ~ue course. The I

Memorandum of then! Executive Secretary Ermita eXPff ssly stated t}:lat

petitioner's extension tvas until June 30 2005 or until bhe arrival of his
successor, whichever isi earlier. It specifically states, to witl:
I I

Please be akvised that upon your recommendation! as an

exemption to Executive Order No. 136 (series of 1999), the Pt sident
has APPROVED the extension of service of Consul . eneral ! ,

I
ROLANDO S. G~GORJO, Chief of Mission Class II, lof the j

Philippine Consulatel General in Honolulu, Hawaii, Depart1±ient of

I
Foreign Affairs, bcycind the compulsory retirement age, until ne 30,
2005, or until the arriial of his successor, whichever is earlier.
(Emphasis and undedcoring supplied)

Based on the foreJing, the extension of service of peti ,ioner beyond the
compulsory retirement Iage was authorized and approved ~y the President,
albeit belatedly, as the Memorandum advising the DFA of the extension was
only received on May 123, 2005. Nevertheless, the petitiorlkr' s extension of
service also falls withi! the exemption provided under SeRtions 3 and 4 of
E.O. No. 136, since th~ required authorization and approvdl from the Office
of the President retroads to January 1, 2005 as indicated in the Memorandum
of Executive Secretary ?rmita dated May 19, 2005 cited abJfe. It should also
be noted that the maxi1tj.um extension of service beyond thej age of retirement
is one year only, whichJ in the case of petitioner Gregorio, i~ only up to April
17, 200s. · I

Contrary to petit~oner' s claim that he has served aJ Consul General

from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005, the records showe that on April 1,
1
Decision 9 G.R. No. 240778
I
I
I

2005, petitioner's succ~ssor, Consul Betita, was designate as Acting Head

of Post and was deeme(ii to have effectively and officially ~$Sumed office on
the said date. However,: Consul Betita's service, allegedly ftom January 1 to
March 30, 2005, cannot be considered since her designa~ion effective on-
1 11
January 1, 2005 under the DF A's letter dated March 22, 200:5I I cannot override
I

the extension of service authorized by the Executive 1$ecretary

I I
in the
Memorandtpn dated M~y 19, 2005 although belatedly recl(ed on May 23,
200s. : I .

Thus, in view o~the foregoing, we find that petiti~ er's extension of

service was effective frqm January 1, 2005 to March 31, 209! only, the period
where petitioner contin*ed to assume or hold the post of Corrsul General, and
not until June 30, 2005! as he has claimed. Petitioner has iot shown that he
has rendered actual sen1ices after Cons~l Betita has been de~~gnated as Acting
Head of the PCG of Hc(molulu on Apnl 1, 2005. In fact, tlie records would
show that on March 3 li, 2005, a Certificate of Clearance 'N'as issued by the
DF A indicating that pdtitioner was already cleared of mo~ey and property
accountability by PCG lof Honolulu. Significantly, petitiotier did not report
for work from April 1, ~005 to June 30, 2005, as evidencefl by the Leave of
Absence filed by petiti<hner with the Office of Personnel ai1tl
Administrative
Services for the said pe1liod. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to his salary and
other benefits only for the period from January 1, 2005 up td March 31, 2005.

Th1s . a1so m
. 1s . acc~r
! d . . 1e o f quantum ieruzt, mvo l<.e d b y
. h t h e prmc1p
wit I · .

petitioner, which liter~lly means "as much as he desen1~s." Under this

principle a person may Irecover a reasonable value of the ttting he delivered
or the service he rendered. 38 The principle also acts as a ~evice to prevent
undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person
to retain benefit withotlt paying for it. The principle of ql~antum meruit is
predicated on equity. Jiere, petitioner has sufficiently estab iished his right to
1

be compensated for the:. period for which his services as Coii sul General was
extended, from January: 1, 2005 to March 31, 2005.
I
I

~HER~FORE,! premises considered, the Petition fftr Cer~i~rari filed

by petlt10ner 1s hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Thb Dec1s10n dated
February 28, 2017 and t~e Resolution dated March 8, 2018 dfthe Commission
on Audit En Banc in CPA CP Case Nos. 2015-436 & 437 kre SET ASIDE.
Petitioner Rolando S. $regorio is entitled to the payment llof his salary and
additional compensatiom and Overseas Allowance and Living Quarters
Allowance as Consul Qeneral of the Philippines in Honolu p, U.S.A., for the,
1
period from January i, :.· 2005 to March 31, 2005, the
extension of service. :
periol~
of his approved
I
I

Accordingly, thi~ case is REMANDED to responde, t Commission pn

Audit for the computatibn of petitioner's money claim in ad,
ordance with the
foregoing.

38
~

I
Geronimo v. COA; G.R. No. 224163, December 4, 2018.
1

I
q
Decision 10 G.R. No. 240778

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

$,JR.
Associate Justke
I

. 0-~AVIER
Just{ce

EDGLEUos Associate Justice

I
SANTOS
Associa~e
I
-
SAMUEL H.1 !GAERLAN
I,

Justice

I
Decision 11 G.R. No. 240778

,CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Consti ion, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in d~msultation be£ re
the case was assigned ~o the writer of the opinion of the Cdbrt.
. I

DIOSDADO : PERALTA •

Chief Jtl
tice

'I
: I