DOMINGO VS CARAGUE

April 15, 2005 | SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ |En

Banc
P: Eufemio Dommingo, et al | R: Hon
Guillermo Carague (Chairman Commission on
Audit), et al
TOPIC: Absence of Standing
FACTS
Petition assails the legality of Resolution
2002-05 of the Commission on Audit (COA)
providing for Organizational
Restructuring Plan
- Petitioners argue that it is void for
want of an enabling law authorizing
COA to undertake it and providing
standards, conditions, restrictions,
limitations, guidelines, and
parameters.
- COA committed GAD in initiating it
without legal authority
Petitioners are retired Commissioners of COA.
They claim to maintain a deep-seated
abiding interest in the affairs of COA,
especially in its Organizational Restructuring
Plan, as concerned taxpayers.
Other petitioners are incumbent officers or
employees of COA, who claim they were
unceremoniously divested of their
designations/ranks upon implementation of
the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan
without just cause and without due
process, in violation of Civil Service
Law. They were also deprived of their
respective Representation and Transportation
Allowances (RATA), thus causing them undue
financial prejudice.
Petitioners, through jurisprudence (Chavez,
Agan JR, Information Technology Foundation)
claim their standing should be recognized
because of the issues transcendental
importance
- COA Organizational Restructuring Plan
is an overhaul of the COA, with a
spillover effect upon its audit
performance.
- This will have an impact upon the
rest of the government bodies
subject to its audit supervision
- In the 3 cases cited by the petitioners,
standing was upheld because of
transcendental importance (Chavez),
protection of direct and substantial

interest (Agan Jr), and matter of public

concern for the nations political and
economic future (Information
Technology Foundation)
OSG says petitioners have no legal standing
because they have not shown a personal
stake in the outcome of the case or an
actual or potential injury that can be
redressed by our favorable decision.
- Petitioners themselves said they do
not seek any affirmative relief that
would redound to their personal gain
- Neither can they file as taxpayers
because they do not claim any
misapplication of taxpayers money
ISSUE: W/N petitioners have legal
standing NO
HELD/RATIO
Petitioners do not have legal standing
because they have not shown any direct
and personal interest in the COA
Organizational Restructuring Plan.
- No indication that they have
sustained or are in imminent
danger of sustaining some direct
injury as a result of its implementation
- Admitted that they do not seek any
affirmative relief that would redound
to their personal benefit or gain.
Petitioners contention that they have been
demoted is baseless because they were not
actually demoted.
- Demotion = movement from one
position to another involving the
issuance of an appointment with
diminution in duties, responsibilities,
status, or rank which may or may not
involve reduction in salary.
- There have been no new
appointments issued under the COA
Organizational Restructuring Plan.
Also, the change in their status from COA
auditors (receiving monthly RATA) to COA
auditors (receiving only reimbursable RATA)
cannot be attributed to the COA
Organizational Restructuring Plan but to the
implementation of the Audit Team
Approach (through COA Memorandum
2002-034)
- Petitioners are not qualified to be
Audit Team Leaders or to receive fixed

monthly RATA since none of them hold

the rank or position of State Auditor IV.
But this does not mean that they are
not entitled to receive reimbursable
RATA if they are designated as Audit
Team Leaders.

It is clear from the text of the said

COA Memorandum that the
principle of non-diminution of
benefits has been upheld.

PETITION DISMISSED