DECISION NO.

2018-094
January 25, 2018

Subject: Petition for Review of Mr. Jaime Exconde, Jr., et al., all of the City Government of
Valenzuela, of Commission on Audit National Capital Region-Local Government
Sector Decision dated April 7, 2016, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance Nos. 14-
002 and 14-003, both dated May 26, 2014, on the payment of honoraria to the
members of the different committees/councils/boards of Valenzuela City for calendar
years 2012 and 2013, amounting to P8,925,000.00 and P2,179,000.00, respectively

DECISION

Before this Commission is the Petition for Review1 of Mr. Jaime Exconde, Jr., Josefina Acurantes, Dorothy Evangelista,
and Flocerfida Villamar, all of the City Government of Valenzuela, of Commission on Audit (COA) National Capital Region-Local
Government Sector (NCR-LGS) Decision dated April 7, 2016, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance (ND) Nos. 14-002 and 14-
003, both dated May 26, 2014, on the payment of honoraria to the members of the different committees/councils/boards of
Valenzuela City for calendar years (CY) 2012 and 2013, in the amounts of P8,925,000.00 and P2,179,000.00, respectively.

Petitioners received a copy of the NDs on June 11, 2014. 2 On December 11, 2014, 3 or after 182 days from receipt of the
NDs, they filed an appeal before the Regional Director (RD), COA NCR-LGS. On April 7, 2016, the RD issued the assailed
decision denying the appeal, a copy of which was received by the petitioners on April 12, 2016. 4 The herein petition was filed on
April 28, 2016,5 after 16 days from receipt of the decision, or after a total of 198 days from receipt of the ND.

Therefore, the petition was filed out of time. Under Section 3,6 Rule VII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the
COA, the appeal should have been filed within six months from receipt of the decision of the auditor or the ND.

The perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and non-
compliance with such legal requirement is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment appealed from, final and executory. 7
Although as a general rule, rules of procedure are liberally construed, the provisions with respect to the rules on the manner and
periods of perfecting appeals are strictly applied and are only relaxed in exceptional circumstances on equitable considerations,8
which are not present in this case.

The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must strictly
comply with the requirements of the rules, and failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal.9

Thus, the late filing of the petition has rendered the decision sought to be reviewed final and executory, as provided under
Section 22.1 of the Rules and Regulations on the Settlement of Accounts,10 viz:

A decision of the Commission Proper, ASB, Director or Auditor upon any matter within their respective
jurisdiction; if not appealed as herein provided, shall become final and executory.

Having attained finality, the assailed decision may no longer be modified. In the case of FGU Insurance Corporation (now
BPI/MS Insurance Corporation) vs. Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 66, and G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation ,11
the Supreme Court ruled that:

Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired
finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the
court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must
immediately be struck down.

At any rate, even if this Commission relaxes the procedural requirements and rules on the merits, the petition will still be
denied on the following grounds:

1. The petitioners’ allegation that the grant of honoraria to the member-employees is justified under
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Circular No. 2004-5A12 dated October 7, 2005 is
misplaced. The said circular specifically applies to membership of government employees in government
procurement activities, like the Bids and Awards Committee and its Technical Working Group, and not to
membership in any other committee. The petitioners, therefore, cannot bank on the said circular to justify
the grant of honoraria to the city officials and employees.
 2. DBM Circular No. 2007-2 13 dated October 1, 2007 is not applicable since the committees/councils/boards
created by the city government may not be considered as special projects under the subject circular. Thus,
the members of said committees/councils/boards are not entitled to the grant of honoraria.

3. The payment of honoraria to the petitioners falls within the proscription on double compensation under the
Constitution. Being so, the grant of honoraria to the city officials and employees has no legal basis.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, Commission on Audit
National Capital Region–Local Government Sector Decision dated April 7, 2016, which affirmed Notice of Disallowance Nos. 14-
002 and 14-003, both dated May 26, 2014, on the payment of honoraria to the members of the different
committees/councils/boards of Valenzuela City for calendar years 2012 and 2013, amounting to P8,925,000.00 and
P2,179,000.00, respectively, is FINAL and EXECUTORY.

(SGD.) MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO

Chairperson

(SGD.) JOSE A. FABIA (SGD.) ISABEL D. AGITO

Commissioner Commissioner

Attested by:

(SGD.) NILDA B. PLARAS

Director IV
Commission Secretariat

Copy furnished:

Atty. Allan Roullo Yap

Atty. Rinchel E. Aurellana
Atty. Aura Rizza A. Garcia-Gabriel
Counsels for the Petitioners
City Legal Office
Valenzuela City

The Audit Team Leader

The Supervising Auditor

Valenzuela City

The Director
National Capital Region‒Local Government Sector
Information Technology Office, Systems and Technical Services Sector

The Assistant Commissioners

Local Government Sector
Commission Proper Adjudication and Secretariat Support Services Sector

All of this Commission

ESZ/LED/ERD/RGA/AGV

CMIS 2017-1320/CP Case No. 2016-0300

1 Pursuant to Rule VII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit.
2 Rollo, pp. 192 and 195.
3 Official Receipt No. 2482424, rollo, p. 119.
4 Stamped on the copy of the decision, attached as Annex F of the petition, rollo, p. 9.
5 Official Receipt No. 8772524, rollo, p. 77.
6 Section 3. Period of Appeal. – The appeal shall be taken within the time remaining of the six (6) months period under Section 4, Rule V, taking into account the
suspension of the running thereof under Section 5 of the same Rule in case of appeals from the Director’s decision, or under Sections 9 and 10, Rule VI in case of decision
of the ASB.
7 Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano vs. Constancio Benemerito, et al., G.R. No. 174247, February 21, 2007, citing Cabellan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93090, March 3, 1999.
8 Ibid., citing Buenaflor vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142021, November 29, 2000.
9 M.A. Santander Construction, Inc. vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 136477, November 10, 2004.
10 Commission on Audit Circular No. 2009-006 dated September 15, 2009.
11 G.R. No. 161282, February 23, 2011.
12 Guidelines on the Grant of Honoraria to Government Personnel Involved in Government Procurement.
13 Guidelines on the Grant of Honoraria Due to Assignment in Government Special Projects.