Scribd
Upload
49 views

Nac Vs Coaudit

This document summarizes an audit dispute between the Commission on Audit (COA) and the National Agrarian Reform Council (NAC) regarding the payment of honoraria to representatives of ex officio NAC members. The COA upheld the disallowance of such honoraria payments. The issue is whether the COA's disallowance was valid. The court ruled in favor of the COA, finding that the representatives were not de facto officers as they were merely designated and not appointed, and are not entitled to compensation their own principals are prohibited from receiving.

Uploaded by

Ryan Sanchez
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
49 views

Nac Vs Coaudit

This document summarizes an audit dispute between the Commission on Audit (COA) and the National Agrarian Reform Council (NAC) regarding the payment of honoraria to representatives of ex officio NAC members. The COA upheld the disallowance of such honoraria payments. The issue is whether the COA's disallowance was valid. The court ruled in favor of the COA, finding that the representatives were not de facto officers as they were merely designated and not appointed, and are not entitled to compensation their own principals are prohibited from receiving.

Uploaded by

Ryan Sanchez
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/ 2

NAC VS COAudit

FACTS:
The COA upheld Auditor Ernesto C. Eulalias order disallowing the
payment of honoraria to the representatives of petitioners ex officio members,
per COA Memorandum No. 97-038. On October 15, 1997, NAC resident
auditor Eulalia disallowed on audit the payment of honoraria to the 3
representatives of ex officio members of NAC. Petitioner invoked
Administrative Order No. 2 in assailing before the COA the rulings of the
resident auditor and the NGAO disallowing payment of honoraria to the ex
officio members representatives, to no avail.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the disallowance of honoraria by COA is valid.
HELD:
The court ruled in positive. The representatives cannot be considered de
facto officers because they were not appointed but were merely designated to
act as such. Furthermore, they are not entitled to something their own
principals are prohibited from receiving. Neither can they claim good faith,
given the express prohibition of the Constitution and the finality of our decision
in Civil Liberties Unionprior to their receipt of such allowances.
A de facto officer derives his appointment from one having colorable authority
to appoint, if the office is an appointive office, and whose appointment is valid
on its face. (He is) one who is in possession of an office and is discharging its
duties under color of authority, by which is meant authority derived from an
appointment, however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent be not a
mere volunteer.
Lastly, we disagree with NACs position that the representatives are de
facto officers and as such are entitled to allowances, pursuant to our
pronouncement in Civil Liberties Union:
where there is no de jure officer, a de facto officer, who in good faith has had
possession of the office and has discharged the duties pertaining thereto, is
legally entitled to the emoluments of the office, and may in appropriate action
recover the salary, fees and other compensation attached to the office.

You might also like