G.R. No. 253218 – DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (DOST) OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL represented by SEC. FORTUNATO DE LA PEÑA, in his capacity as Secretary, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

INTING, J.

Rule Synopsis

The 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure (RRPC) of the COA provides that the decision of the auditor becomes final upon the expiration of six (6) months from the date of its receipt. Meanwhile, a decision or resolution of the COA Proper becomes final and executory after the lapse of 30 days from its notice. Moreover, only the persons held liable under a Notice of Disallowance (ND) have the legal standing to assail the disallowance. Finally, a case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use.

Facts

In 1997, Republic Act (RA) 8493, or the Magna Carta for Scientists, Engineers, Researchers and other S&T (Science and Technology) personnel in the Government, was passed which, among others, granted a monthly longevity pay to concerned government employees.

The DOST paid step increment differentials for 2005 to 2008 amounting to P1.03 million to 101 employees. Said employees also received longevity pay.

On April 16, 2009, the DOST Accounting Division received an ND disallowing the said step increment differentials. The COA opined that the S&T personnel had the option to receive either the step increment or longevity pay, but not both. The COA found 103 persons liable, including the payees and several DOST officers.

Then DOST Secretary Estrella Alabastro (Sec. Alabastro) moved for reconsideration of the ND, which the COA denied. Sec. Alabastro then appealed to the COA National Government Sector (NGS), which upheld the disallowance. Sec. Alabastro then filed a petition for review with the COA Proper, which affirmed COA NGS’ decision. During the pendency of the petition for review, Mario Montejo (Sec. Montejo) was appointed as DOST Secretary. Further, none of the 103 persons liable under the ND filed an appeal or petition for review.

DOST Assistant Secretary Oswaldo Santos (Asec. Santos) and Engr. Arnaldo Reyes (Engr. Reyes) moved for the reconsideration of COA Proper’s resolution on behalf of the DOST regular employees, which was dismissed. In the said motion, ASec. Santos and Engr. Reyes stated that they received a copy of the COA Proper decision on February 17, 2015.

Sec. Montejo later wrote COA Chairperson seeking relief from COA Proper’s resolution, which the COA Proper treated as second motion for reconsideration and accordingly dismissed the same.

Sec. Fortunato Dela Pena was appointed as DOST Secretary. He then filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Was the instant petition timely filed?
2. Did the COA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it disallowed the step increment differentials due to length of service which were granted to S&T personnel, who also received longevity pay from 2005 to 2008?

Ruling and Discussion

1. No. The instant petition was not timely filed.
   
   The subject ND had long attained finality.
   
   The 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure (RRPC) of the COA provides that the decision of the auditor becomes final upon the expiration of six (6) months from the date of its receipt. In the case of a disallowed payroll with several payees, such is reckoned from service of ND to the accountant, which constitutes constructive service to all payees listed in the payroll.
   
   Here, more than 15 years have passed since DOST’s Accounting Department received the ND on April 16, 2009, and none of the 103 persons held liable appealed the ND.
   
   COA Proper’s Decision attained finality on March 19, 2015 — five years prior to the filing of the instant petition.
   
   Under the 2009 RRPC, a decision or resolution of the COA Proper becomes final and executory after the lapse of 30 days from its notice. The doctrine of finality or immutability of judgment provides that when a decision has attained finality, it may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. This doctrine applies not only to decisions of courts but also to decisions of quasi-judicial agencies such as the COA.
   
   Here, the assailed decision was served to the DOST on February 17, 2025. Such date of received was clearly stated in the motion for reconsideration filed by ASec. Santos and Engr. Reyes. Sec. De La Peña’s explanation for the omission of the date of receipt of the assailed Decision is unacceptable and disingenuous. Thus, the Secretary or his successor only has until March 19, 2025 to file a petition before the court. The motion for reconsideration filed on May 27, 2015 did not toll the running of the reglementary period.
   
   Further, ASec. Santos and Engr. Reyes did not submit any proof of authority to file the motion for reconsideration on behalf of Sec. Montejo, the DOST, or the 103 persons liable under the ND.
   
   The COA correctly ruled that Sec. Montejo’s letter cannot be entertained for lack of jurisdiction, the COA decision having already lapsed into finality. Further, such letters is a second motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading under the 2009 RRPC.
   
   Moreover, the parties have no legal standing to assail the COA decision.
   
   Every action shall be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party-in-interest. The 2009 RRPC provides that only an aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the auditor or of the director. Under the rules of court, it is the aggrieved party who may file a petition for certiorari with the proper court. Meanwhile, a liability in a disallowance case is a personal obligation of the persons held liable in the notice of disallowance. Hence, only the 103 persons held liable under the ND have the legal standing to assail the disallowance.
   
   Here: (a) Sec. De La Peña was not among 103 persons held liable under the ND, and he provided no proof of authority, such as a special power of attorney, from any of the 103 persons held liable under the ND to file the present Petition on their behalf; (b) the incumbent DOST Secretary at the time the ND was issued was Sec. Alabastro; (c) DOST’s interest is not adversely affected by the ND and the assailed Decision. Sec. De La Peña failed to allege, much less demonstrate, that the assailed Decision adversely affects the interest of the DOST; (d) Sec. Alabastro, Sec. Montejo, ASec. Santos and Engr. Reyes did not file the respective pleadings on behalf of the persons liable in the ND.
   
   The COA’ ruling on a question of law, even if already final, does not create a binding legal precedent that will apply to future cases. Administrative decisions, such as decisions issued by the COA, do not enjoy the same level of recognition as judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution. Thus, other S&T personnel, even if similarly situated to the 103 persons held liable under the ND, are strangers to the case and are not bound by the judgment in the COA proceedings. No one shall be affected by a proceeding to which one is a stranger.
   
   
2. The Supreme Court did not resolve the substantive issue in the instant case for being moot and academic.
   
   A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use.
   
   Here, the DOST, the DBM, and the COA already arrived at a consensus more than a decade ago that S&T personnel cannot simultaneously enjoy both the longevity pay and the step increment due to length of service.

dispositive

Petition dismissed. Decision and Resolution of the COA affirmed.