276775 Teresita P. De Guzman, et al. Vs. Commission on Audit — Official PDF

Decision 8 G.R. No. 276775 as unauthorized and illegal disbursements of public funds. Being GOCCs with a special charter, local water utilities such as the BWD are covered by Republic Act No. 6758, as Presidential Decree No. 198 does not contain any exemption clause. As a mere creation of statute, the BWD’s powers are circumscribed by laws and regulations. Corporations, whether created by special or general charter, cannot issue resolutions that are contrary to law or regulations.“* The questioned disbursements remain invalid even if they are classified as EMEs, as the COA proper correctly applied COA Circular No. 2006-001 and the 2009 GAA in the absence of authority to grant EMEs in Presidential Decree No. 198." Finally, good faith cannot be invoked against liability for illegal disbursements when there is a clear contravention of prevailing law and regulations. Petitioners’ case for good faith is premised solely on the purported validity of Resolution Nos. 64-2008 and 65-2008. However, as approving and certifying officers who are responsible for ascertaining the legal bases of the disbursements they authorize, they should have been aware of Republic Act No. 6758 and DBM CCC No. 10, which had been in effect for 19 ‘and 9 years, respectively, when the BWD Board approved. Resolution Nos. 64-2008 and 65-2008." The recipients, petitioners de Guzman, Royeca, and Tenedero, are likewise liable, as the benefits are not only patently illegal but also had no clear, direct, and reasonable connection to their official functions, as Resolution Nos. 64-2008 and 65-2008 do not specify the acts or efforts they committed in contribution to the purported successes of the BWD.”7 Petitioners reply that a non-lawyer may be authorized to sign and file a Petition for Certiorari through a special power of attorney (SPA). They argue that the BWD directors, officers, and employees have consistently executed SPAs for such purpose since 2018, and this is the first time that the OSG has questioned such practice. The Petition fails. Petitioners admit that: [s]ince 2018, the Board of Directors, officers, and employees of BWD have consistently. executed Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) designating non- lawyers as attorneys-in-fact. In numerous Petitions for Certiorari previously filed by BWD—several of which have already attained finality through rulings of the Supreme Court—this is the first instance in which the Commission on Audit, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has questioned the authority of the attorneys-in-fact to initiate such petitions.” 4 Id, at 173-178. Jd. at 178-182. 4 Id. at 182-186. “7 Id. at 186-187. Id. at 226.