Facts
The COA disallowed ₱7,198,182.96 that the SSS Western Mindanao Division paid its personnel as Special Counsel Allowance, Short Term Variable Pay, Bank/Christmas Gift Certificate, and Rice Subsidy, for exceeding the DBM-approved 2010 Corporate Operating Budget, under Notices of Disallowance Nos. 2012-01 and 2012-02. The COA Regional Director denied SSS's appeal and required refund; the COA Proper then dismissed SSS's Petition for Review as filed beyond the 180-day reglementary period and declared the Regional Director's decision final. SSS's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, prompting this Rule 64 petition, which the Court initially dismissed but reinstated on reconsideration after the Solicitor General, as tribune of the people, urged relaxation of the rules. SSS argued that under RA No. 8282, the Social Security Commission alone had authority to fix its personnel's compensation, allowances, and benefits, making presidential or DBM approval unnecessary.
Issue
May the COA disallow allowances and benefits that a GOCC such as the SSS paid its personnel without securing the President's prior approval through the DBM, despite the GOCC's charter authority to fix reasonable compensation for its own employees?
Ruling
Yes. Citing and applying to this case its 2020 ruling in SSS v. COA, the Court held that "GOCCs like the SSS are always subject to the supervision and control of the President." SSS's charter authority to fix reasonable compensation under RA No. 8282 does not repeal PD No. 1597, MO No. 20 s. 2001, Joint Resolution No. 4 s. 2008, or EO No. 7 s. 2010, which require Presidential approval, through the DBM, for new or increased allowances and benefits. Since SSS neither secured such approval nor disputed that it paid out items its 2010 Corporate Operating Budget had disapproved, the disallowance was proper and COA committed no grave abuse of discretion. On the procedural objection, the Court relaxed the 180-day appeal period in the interest of substantial justice, noting the short delay and absence of any intent to delay proceedings. Applying the Rules on Return in Madera v. Commission on Audit, the Court absolved the approving and certifying officers from solidary liability because no prior ruling had settled SSS's obligation to secure presidential approval when the amounts were disbursed, but held that the recipients, whether officers or passive payees, must individually return what they respectively received, the benefits having no legal basis. The petition was GRANTED IN PART, affirming the COA Proper's Decision and Resolution with this modification.