Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Nunal V Commission On Audit

    Uploaded by

    John Roger Aquino
    14 views1 page

    Original Title

    Nunal_v_Commission_on_Audit.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    14 views1 page

    Nunal V Commission On Audit

    Uploaded by

    John Roger Aquino

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Nunal v.

    Commission on Audit
    169 SCRA 358
    Ponente: Justice Melencio-Herrera

    Topic: Requirement as to decisions

    Facts:
    Petitioner filed his claim for separation pay in the amount of P54,092.50 to which he is
    allegedly entitled due to the abolition of the position of Municipal Administrator, which
    separation pay is provided for by the Local Government Code. The Provincial Auditor of
    Basilan opined that the claim was legal and proper but payment thereof was made subject
    to availability of funds and the ruling of the Regional Office of the Commission on Audit.
    Then, the Regional Director of the Commission on Audit reversed the Provincial Auditor
    of Basilan and denied petitioner's claim for separation pay. Petitioner's Motion for
    Reconsideration was forwarded to the Commission on Audit (COA).

    Resolving the petition forwarded, the COA Central Office not only denied petitioner's
    claim for separation pay but also disallowed the other payments made to petitioner.

    Thus, this recourse by petitioner alleging grave abuse of discretion by COA, which
    Petition the Supreme Court had previously dismissed.

    The petitioner now contends that the previous resolution of the Supreme Court was not in
    accordance with Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

    Issue:
    Whether or not a resolution of the Supreme Court must comply with the requirements of
    Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

    Held:
    A "Resolution" is not a "Decision" within the meaning of the Constitutional requirement.
    This mandate is applicable only in cases "submitted for decision," i.e., given due course
    and after the filing of Briefs or Memoranda and/or other pleadings, as the case may be. It
    is not applicable to an Order or Resolution refusing due course to a Petition for Certiorari.

    You might also like