Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nunal V Commission On Audit
Nunal V Commission On Audit
Commission on Audit
169 SCRA 358
Ponente: Justice Melencio-Herrera
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.