This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-22 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In Yap v. Commission on Audit,[33] this court explained that the Commission on Audit has the duty to make its own assessment of the merits of the disallowance and need not be limited to a review of the grounds relied upon by the auditor of the agency concerned: x x x we rule that, in resolving cases brought before it on appeal, respondent COA is not required to limit its review only to the grounds relied upon by a government agency's auditor with respect to disallowing certain disbursements of public funds. In consonance with its general audit power, respondent COA is not merely legally permitted, but is also duty-bound to make its own assessment of the merits of the disallowed disbursement and not simply restrict itself to reviewing the validity of the ground relied upon by the auditor of the government agency concerned. To hold otherwise would render COA's vital constitutional power unduly limited and thereby useless and ineffective.[34] | |||||
|
2012-02-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We have previously declared that it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one that was constitutionally created like herein respondent COA, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers, but also of their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. It is, in fact, an oft-repeated rule that findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. Thus, only when the COA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may this Court entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[27] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||