Facts
On 6 July 2005, the SSC issued Resolution No. 259 granting a P20,000.00 CNA incentive to SSS employees within the collective negotiating unit, plus a "counterpart" benefit of the same amount to personnel outside that unit — confidential, coterminous, and contractual employees, lawyers, and executives. The SSS Supervising Auditor disallowed the counterpart benefit, totaling P6,180,000.00, for violating Executive Order No. 180 and Administrative Order No. 103, which bar CNA benefits for high-level and confidential employees. The Legal Services Sector denied SSS's appeal, and the COA Commission Proper En Banc affirmed in its 8 May 2014 Decision No. 2014-069, received by SSS on 15 May 2014. SSS moved for reconsideration on 11 June 2014, which COA denied through a Notice dated and received on 4 February 2015. SSS filed the present Rule 64 petition on 20 March 2015.
Issue
Whether the COA gravely abused its discretion in disallowing the "counterpart" CNA incentive to SSS personnel outside the negotiating unit, and in holding the officers and recipients liable to return it.
Ruling
The petition fails on two independent grounds. First, it was filed out of time: SSS's 30-day period ran from its 15 May 2014 receipt of the Decision, was interrupted by its 11 June 2014 motion for reconsideration, and resumed for 5 days from its 4 February 2015 receipt of COA's denial Notice, expiring 9 February 2015 — but SSS filed only on 20 March 2015, 39 days late, so the Decision had already become final. Second, even assuming timeliness, COA committed no grave abuse of discretion: applying Executive Order No. 180, Administrative Order No. 103, and related civil-service issuances, the Court held that "the laws are very clear in stating that only rank-and-file employees who are members of the negotiating unit are entitled to CNA benefits," so high-level managerial, confidential, and coterminous employees, lawyers, and executives could not receive it despite their contribution to agency efficiency. The fixed P20,000.00 amount also violated DBM rules barring predetermined CNA incentive sums. Applying Madera v. Commission on Audit, the approving and certifying officers who authorized payment despite these subsisting laws could not be presumed in good faith and must solidarily return the disallowed amount, while all recipients must return what they received under solutio indebiti. The petition was DISMISSED, and the 8 May 2014 Decision and 20 November 2014 Resolution in COA Decision No. 2014-069 were AFFIRMED.