Scribd
Upload
115 views3 pages

COA Cases (Consti 1)

This case involves a dispute between Caltex Philippines and the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding Caltex's outstanding tax obligations to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and claims for reimbursement from the fund. The COA directed Caltex to remit unpaid taxes to the OPSF and prohibited offsetting future remittances against reimbursements. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that taxes cannot be offset against claims against the government and PD 1956 requires the OPSF to be funded through taxation. However, Caltex's claims for reimbursement from sales to the National Power Corporation were permitted.

Uploaded by

Dee LM
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
115 views3 pages

COA Cases (Consti 1)

This case involves a dispute between Caltex Philippines and the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding Caltex's outstanding tax obligations to the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) and claims for reimbursement from the fund. The COA directed Caltex to remit unpaid taxes to the OPSF and prohibited offsetting future remittances against reimbursements. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that taxes cannot be offset against claims against the government and PD 1956 requires the OPSF to be funded through taxation. However, Caltex's claims for reimbursement from sales to the National Power Corporation were permitted.

Uploaded by

Dee LM
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Caltex Philippines, Inc. v Commission on Audit GR No.

92585, May 8, 1992


FACTS:
In 1989, COA sent a letter to Caltex, directing it to remit its collection to the
Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF), excluding that unremitted for the years
1986 and 1988, of the additional tax on petroleum products authorized under
the PD 1956. Pending such remittance, all of its claims for reimbursement
from the OPSF shall be held in abeyance. The grant total of its unremitted
collections of the above tax is P1,287,668,820.
Caltex submitted a proposal to COA for the payment and the recovery of
claims. COA approved the proposal but prohibited Caltex from further
offsetting remittances and reimbursements for the current and ensuing years.
Caltex moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the present
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the amounts due from Caltex to the OPSF may be offsetted against
Caltexs outstanding claims from said funds
RULING:
No. Taxation is no longer envisioned as a measure merely to raise revenue
to support the existence of government. Taxes may be levied with a
regulatory purpose to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of
a threatened industry which is affected with public interest as to be within the
police power of the State.
PD 1956, as amended by EO 137, explicitly provides that the source of
OPSF is taxation. A taxpayer may not offset taxes due from the claims he
may have against the government. Taxes cannot be subject of compensation
because the government and taxpayer are not mutually creditors and debtors
of each other and a claim for taxes is not such a debt, demand,, contract or
judgment as is allowed to be set-off.
Hence, COA decision is affirmed except that Caltexs claim for
reimbursement of underrecovery arising from sales to the National Power
Corporation is allowed.

Bustamante v COA 216 SCRA 134

FACTS:
Petitioner is the Regional Legal Counsel of National Power
Corporation (NPC). As such he was issued a government vehicle with plate
number SCC 387. Pursuant to NPC policy as reflected in the Board
Resolution No. 81-95 authorizing the monthly disbursement of transportation
allowance, the petitioner, in addition to the use of government vehicle,
claimed his transportation allowance for the month of January 1989. On May
31, 1990, the petitioner received an Auditor's Notice to Person Liable dated
April 17, 1990 from respondent Regional Auditor Martha Roxana Caburian
disallowing P1,250.00 representing aforesaid transportation allowance. The
petitioner moved for reconsideration of the disallowance of the claim for
transportation allowance which was denied.
Petitioner appealed this denial to the Commission on Audit which
denied do due course. Hence this petition.
The petitioner takes exception from the coverage of said circular
contending that such circular did not mention the NPC as one of the
corporations/offices covered by it ( COA Circular No. 75-6)
ISSUE:
Whether such denial to give due course to the appeal of herein
petitioner constitutes grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction?
Whether NPC takes an exception from such coverage of the said
circular contending that such circular did not mention NPC as one of the
corporations/offices covered by it.

HELD:
NO. Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or in other words
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
NO. It is very patent that the circular is addressed, among others, to
managing heads of Government-owned or Controlled Corporations, the NPC
being held under such category of corporations. We likewise cannot sustain
petitioner's contention that the Commission, in the exercise of its power
granted by the Constitution, usurped the statutory functions of the NPC
Board of Directors for its leads to the absurd conclusion that a mere Board of
Directors of a government-owned and controlled corporation, by issuing a
resolution, can put to naught a constitutional provision which has been
ratified by the majority of the Filipino people. If We will not sustain the
Commission's power and duty to examine, audit and settle accounts
pertaining to this particular expenditures or use of funds and property, owned
or held in trust by this government-owned and controlled corporation, the
NPC, We will be rendering inutile this Constitutional Body which has been
tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the
government's, and ultimately, the people's property.

Orocio v COA 213 SCRA 109


FACTS:
On accident occurred at the Malaya Power Plant of the National
Power Corporation (NPC) where two individuals suffered injury Ernesto
Pumaloy, an NPC employee, and Domingo Abodizo, a casual employee
OPLGS, the janitorial contractor of the NPC. The two injured personnel were
brought to the hospital.
NPC initially advanced the amount for hospitalization expenses for
the treatment of Abodizo, and set up this as an account receivable from
OPLGS deducted on a staggared basis from the latter's billing against the
NPC util the same was fully satisfied. Subsequently, OPLGS requested a
refund of the total amount deducted from their billings representing payment
of the advances made by the NPC. In the light of the favorable
recommendation of the NPC legal counsel, the amount of hospitalization
expenses was refunded to the contractor OPLGS.
The Unit Auditor of the Commission on Audit disallowed the refund of
the hospitalizattion expenses of Abodizo contending that under the contract,
there is no employee-employer relation between the NPC and the OPLGS
employees. Hence,NPC is not answerable for such expenses. General
Counsel asked for a reconsideration of the said disallowance denied. The
COA Regional Director, herein respondent, confirmed the disallowance. NPC
General Counself submitted a second request for reconsideration and
justifies that his legal opinion is based on Sec 15-A of RA 6395 (NPC
Charter) which provides that ... all legal matters shall be handled by the
General Counsel of the Corporation...
ISSUE:
Whether the disbursement on the basis of the legal opinion of the
legal counsel of the NPC (quasi-judicial function) is within the scope of the
auditing power of the COA?

HELD:
The Constitution grants the COA the power, authority and duty to
examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the expenditures or uses
of funds and property pertaining to the Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations. The matter of allowing in audit a disbursement account is not
a ministerial function, but one which necessitates the exercise of discretion.
Besides, the OPLGS, Abodizo's employer, admitted that the incident was
purely accidental and that there is no showing whatsoever in the accident
report of any negligence on the part of the NPC or its employees.
The NPC, as a government-owned corporation, is under the COA's
audit power. The COA should not be bound by the opinion of the legal
counself of said agency or instrumentality which may have been the basis for
the questioned disbursements, otherwise it would become a toothless tiger
and its auditing functions would be a meaningless and futile exercise.

You might also like