356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on

Audit

*
G.R. No. 88435. January 16, 2002.

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, JESUS

P. ESTANISLAO, DOLORES A. SANTIAGO, LYNN H.
CATUNCAN, NORMA O. TERREL, MA. ANTONIA G.
REBUENO, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
respondent.

Commission on Audit (COA); Mere fact that private auditors

may audit government agencies does not divest the COA of its
power to examine and audit the same government agencies.—The
mere fact that private auditors may audit government agencies
does not divest the COA of its power to examine and audit the
same government agencies. The COA is neither by-passed nor
ignored since even with a private audit the COA will still conduct
its usual examination and audit, and its findings and conclusions
will still bind government agencies and their officials. A
concurrent private audit poses no danger whatsoever of public
funds or assets escaping the usual scrutiny of a COA audit.
Same; Same; The Central Bank is devoid of authority to allow
or disallow expenditures of government banks since this function
belongs exclusively to the COA.—Despite the Central Bank’s
concurrent jurisdiction over government banks, the COA’s audit
still prevails over that of the Central Bank since the COA is the
constitutionally mandated auditor of government banks. And in
matters falling under the second paragraph of Section 2, Article
IX-D of the Constitution, the COA’s jurisdiction is exclusive.
Thus, the Central Bank is devoid of authority to allow or disallow
expenditures of government banks since this function belongs
exclusively to the COA.
Same; Same; There is nothing in Section 26 that states,
expressly or impliedly, that the COA’s power to examine and audit
government banks is exclusive, thereby preventing private audit of
government agencies concurrently with the COA audit.—Section
26 defines the extent and scope of the powers of the COA.
Considering the comprehensive definition in Section 26, the
COA’s jurisdiction covers all government agencies, offices,
bureaus and units, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, and even non-government entities enjoying subsidy
from the government. However, there is nothing in Section 26
that states, expressly or impliedly, that the COA’s power to
examine and audit government banks is exclusive, thereby
preventing private audit of government agencies concurrently
with the COA audit.

_______________

* EN BANC.

357
 VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 357

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

Same; Same; Under existing laws, the COA does not have the
sole and exclusive power to examine and audit government banks;
Central Bank has concurrent jurisdiction.—Clearly, under
existing laws, the COA does not have the sole and exclusive power
to examine and audit government banks. The Central Bank has
concurrent jurisdiction to examine and audit, or cause the
examination and audit, of government banks.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Commission on Audit.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Office of the Legal Counsel for DBP.
     Ricardo G. Nepomuceno, Jr. for respondent.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case
1
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the letter-2
decision of the Chairman of the Commission on Audit
(“COA”3
for brevity) and the letter-decision of the COA en
banc, prohibiting the Development Bank of the Philippines
(“DBP” for brevity) from hiring a private external auditor.
This petition raises a question of first impression, whether
or not the constitutional power of the COA to examine and
audit the DBP is exclusive and precludes a concurrent
audit of the DBP by a private external auditor.

The Antecedent Facts

In 1986, the Philippine government, under the

administration of then President Corazon C. Aquino,
obtained from the World Bank an Economic Recovery Loan
(“ERL” for brevity) in the amount of US$310 million. The
ERL was intended to support the recovery of

_______________

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Rollo, pp. 26-30, Petition, Annex “A,” Letter-Decision dated August
29, 1988 signed by COA Chairman Eufemio Domingo.
3 Ibid., pp. 65-69, Petition, Annex “B,” Letter-Decision of the COA en
banc dated May 20, 1989 signed by COA Chairman Eufemio Domingo,
Commissioner Bartolome Fernandez, Jr. and Commissioner Alberto Cruz.

358

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

the Philippine economy, at that time suffering severely

from the financial crisis that hit the country during the
latter part of the Marcos regime.
As a condition for granting the loan, the World Bank
required the Philippine government to rehabilitate the
DBP which was then saddled with huge non-performing
loans. Accordingly, the government committed to
rehabilitate the DBP to make it a viable and self-
sustaining financial institution in recognition of its
developmental role in the economy. The DBP was expected
to continue “providing principally medium and long-term
financing to projects with risks higher than the private4
sector may be willing to accept under reasonable terms.”
The government’s commitment was embodied in the Policy
Statement for the Development Bank of the Philippines
which stated in part:

“4. Furthermore, like all financial institutions under Central Bank

supervision, DBP will now be required to have a private external
audit, and its Board of Directors will now be opened to adequate
private sector representation. It is hoped that with these
commitments, DBP can avoid the difficulties of the past and can
function as a competitive and viable
5
financial institution within
the Philippine financial system.” (Emphasis supplied)

On November 28, 1986, the Monetary Board adopted

Resolution No. 1079 amending the Central Bank’s Manual
of Regulations for Banks and other Financial
Intermediaries, in line with the government’s commitment
to the World Bank to require a private external auditor for
DBP. Thus, on December 5, 1986, the Central Bank
Governor issued Central Bank Circular No. 1124, providing
that:

“SECTION 1. Subsection 1165.5 (Book I) is amended to read as

follows:

1165.5 Financial Audit.—Each Bank, whether Government-owned or

controlled or private, shall cause an annual financial audit to be
conducted by an external independent auditor not later than

_______________

4 Ibid., p. 70, Petition, Annex “C,” Policy Statement for the Development Bank
of the Philippines.
5 Supra, see note 4.

359

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 359

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

thirty (30) days after the close of the calendar year or the fiscal year
adopted by the bank. x x x.
x x x The Audit of a Government-owned or controlled bank by an
external independent auditor shall be in addition to and without
prejudice to that conducted by the Commission on Audit in the discharge
of its mandate under existing law. x x x.
xxx

“SECTION 3. The requirement for an annual financial audit by

an external independent auditor shall extend to specialized and
unique government banks such as the Land Bank 6of the
Philippines and the Development Bank of the Philippines.”

On December 12, 1986, pursuant to Central Bank Circular

No. 1124 and the government’s commitment to the World
Bank, DBP Chairman Jesus Estanislao wrote the COA
seeking approval of the DBP’s engagement 7
of a private
external auditor in addition to the COA.
 On January 2, 1987, to formalize its request for the
ERL, the Philippine government sent the World Bank a
letter assuring the World Bank that pursuant to Central
Bank Circular No. 1124, “all Banks, including government
banks, shall be fully audited by external independent
auditors x x x in addition to that provided by the
Commission on Audit.” The letter was signed by the
Central Bank Governor and the Ministers of Finance,
Trade and Industry, 8 and Economic Planning of the
Philippine government.
On January 8, 1987, the Philippine government and
World Bank negotiating panels reached final agreement on
the private audit of the DBP, as follows:

“13. With respect to the draft Policy Statement, it was agreed that
Sections 4, 7 and 11 would be amended as follows:

_______________

6 Ibid., p. 74, Petition, Annex “E,” Central Bank Circular No. 1124
dated December 5, 1986.
7 Ibid., p. 93, Petition, Annex “H,” Letter of DBP Chairman dated
December 12, 1986.
8 Ibid., p. 76, Petition, Annex “F,” Letter of Development Policy dated
January 2, 1987.

360

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

x x x (iii) Section 11 should in line with the letter of Development

Policy, confirm that the external independent audits would
commence with a balance sheet audit as of December 31, 1986
and a full financial audit, including income statements, starting
with the period July 1 to December 31, 1986. A copy of COA’s
letter (referred to in par. 1, a draft of which is attached as Annex
VIII) regarding DBP’s appointment of a private external auditor
will be sent to the Bank before the distribution of the loan
documents to the Bank’s Board, along with a copy of the scope of
audit as approved by COA and satisfactory to the Bank.
With regard to the scope of the audit to be undertaken by the
private external auditors, the terms of reference which will be
issued to the selected auditors should be generally consistent with
the attached model terms of reference for financial audits (Annex
IX). These general terms of reference were discussed during
negotiations and form a part of the World Bank’s 9
guidelines for
financial information on financial institutions.”

On January 20, 1987, then COA Chairman Teofisto

Guingona, Jr. replied to the December 12, 1986 letter of the
DBP Chairman. The COA Chairman’s reply stated that:

“x x x the Commission on Audit (COA) will interpose no objection

to your engagement of a private external auditor as required by
the Economic Recovery Program Loan Agreements of 1987
provided that the terms for 10said audit are first reviewed and
approved by the Commission.”

The following day, the COA Chairman also informed the

Consultant of the Central Bank that the COA interposed
no objection to the proposed scope of audit services to be
undertaken 11by the private external auditors to be engaged
by the DBP.
On February 18, 1987, the Board of Directors of the DBP
approved the hiring of Joaquin Cunanan & Co. as the
DBP’s private external auditor for calendar year 1986 as
required by Central

_______________

9 Ibid., p. 72, Petition Annex “D,” Agreed Minutes of Negotiations on

the Philippine Economic Recovery Program dated January 8, 1987.
10 Ibid., p. 94, Petition, Annex “I,” Letter of COA Chairman Teofisto
Guingona to DBP Chairman Jesus Estanislao dated January 20, 1987.
11 Ibid., p. 95, Petition, Annex “J,” Letter of COA Chairman Teofisto
Guingona to Mr. Armand Fabella dated January 21, 1987.

361

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 361

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

Bank Circular No. 1124 and the World Bank. The DBP
Board of Directors placed a ceiling on the amount of
reimbursable out-of-pocket
12
expenses that could be charged
by the private auditor.
On February 23, 1987, the World Bank President, in his
Report to the Bank’s Executive Directors on the Philippine
government’s application for the ERL, certified that the
Philippine government was complying with the
requirement of a private external auditor. The World Bank
President’s certification stated that:

“74. Accounting and Auditing.—All banks both government and

private are now subject to accounting and auditing standards as
established by the Central Bank. To ensure full public
accountability, the Monetary Board now requires that all
government banks be subject to annual audits by independent
private auditing firms, in addition to those normally undertaken
by the Government’s Commission on Audit. DBP and PNB have
already selected private auditors, and audited accounts for 1986
and 1987 will be a requirement for the releases
13
of the second and
third tranches, respectively, of the ERL.”

However, a change in the leadership of the COA suddenly

reversed the course of events. On April 27, 1987, the new
COA Chairman, Eufemio Domingo, wrote the Central Bank
Governor protesting the Central Bank’s issuance of
Circular No. 1124 which allegedly encroached upon the
COA’s constitutional and statutory power to audit
government agencies. The COA Chairman’s letter informed
the Governor that:

“This Commission hereby registers its strong objection to that

portion of the CBP Circular No. 1124 which requires government
banks to engage private auditors in addition to that conducted by
the Commission on Audit, and urges the immediate amendment
thereof. It is the position of this Commission that the said
requirement: (a) infringes on Article IX-D of the Philippine
Constitution; (b) violates Section 26 and 32 of the Government
Auditing Code of the Philippines; (c) exposes the financial
programs and strategies of the Philippine Government to high
security risks; (d)
_______________

12 Ibid., p. 96, Petition, Annex “K,” DBP Resolution No. 0185 dated February
18, 1987.
13 Ibid., p. 91, Petition, Annex “G,” Report No. P-4466 dated February 23, 1987.

362

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

allows the unnecessary and unconscionable expenditure of

government funds; and14
(e) encourages unethical encroachment
among professionals.”

On May 13, 1987, after learning that the DBP had signed a
contract with a private auditing firm for calendar year
1986, the new COA Chairman wrote the DBP Chairman
that the COA resident auditors were under instructions to
disallow any payment to the private auditor whose
15
services
were unconstitutional, illegal and unnecessary.
On July 1, 1987, the DBP Chairman sent to the COA
Chairman a copy of the DBP’s contract with Joaquin
Cunanan & Co., signed four months earlier on March 5,
1987. The DBP Chairman’s covering handwritten16
note
sought the COA’s concurrence to the contract.
During the pendency of the DBP Chairman’s note-
request for concurrence, the DBP paid the billings 17
of the
private auditor in the total amount of P487,321.14 despite
the objection of the COA. On October 30, 1987, the COA
Chairman issued a Memorandum disallowing the
payments, and holding the following persons personally
liable for such payment:

“SVP Fajardo who approved the voucher for payment; VP

Santiago who certified that the expenditure was authorized,
necessary and lawful; SM Terrel, Catuncan and Rebueno who
signed the checks; and the head of office who signed the contract
and who is18immediately and primarily responsible for the funds of
the Bank.”

On January 19, 1988, the DBP Chairman wrote the COA

Chairman seeking reconsideration of the COA Chairman’s
Memo-

_______________

14 Rollo, pp. 190-224, Respondent’s Comment dated January 25, 1990,

Annex “7,” p. 5.
15 Ibid., p. 257, Annex “8”.
16 Ibid., p. 97, Petition, Annex “L,” Handwritten note of the DBP
Chairman dated July 1, 1987.
17 Ibid., p. 259, Respondent’s Comment dated January 25, 1990, Annex
“9”.
18 Ibid., p. 98, Petition, Annex “M,” Memorandum of the COA
Chairman dated October 30, 1987.

363

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 363

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

19
 19
randum. However, the DBP received no response until
August 29, 1988 when the COA Chairman issued a letter-
decision denying petitioner’s July 1, 1987 note-request for
concurrence. The letter-decision, one of the two COA
decisions assailed in this petition, declared in part as
follows:

“(a) In the letter to the Central Bank Governor x x x, this

Commission clearly stated its non-negotiable stand on the issue in
the following terms:

‘x x x the very essence of the Commission on Audit as an independent

constitutional commission in the total scheme of Government, is its
singular function to “[E]xamine, audit, and settle x x x all accounts
pertaining to x x x the Government, or any of its subdivisions, x x x
including government-owned or controlled corporations.” To allow private
firms to interfere in this governmental audit domain would be to
derogate the Constitutional supremacy of State audit as the
Government’s guardian of the people’s treasury, and as the prime
advocate of economy in the use of government resources.’ x x x

“(c) In the letter to the Secretary of Finance dated January 28,

1988 x x x, this Commission maintains:

1. ‘COA is in no way prepared to permit ‘use of private auditors’

except insofar as the law allows, which is ‘to deputize and retain
in the name of the Commission such certified public accountants
and other licensed professionals not in the public service as it
may deem necessary to assist government auditors in
undertaking specialized audit engagements’ (Sec. 31, PD No
1445). Outside of this, the Commission does not consider the
matter of hiring private auditing firms a negotiable matter, and
this we want to emphasize to avoid future embarrassment to the
Government. The Commission on Audit is a constitutionally-
created independent and separate body, and neither Congress nor
the Executive Department has the power to detract from its
mandated duties, functions, and powers.
2. ‘Since the proceeds of the proposed loan accrue to the Republic of
the Philippines as borrower, it follows that its accounting and
audit must comply with the laws of this country. To specify in the
Loan Agreement that the loan account, once released to the Gov

_______________

19 Ibid., p. 99, Petition, Annex “N,” Letter of the DBP Chairman dated
January 19, 1988.

364

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

ernment, shall be ‘audited by independent auditors

acceptable to the Bank’ is not only to entirely by-pass this
Commission but to ignore as well the Constitution and the
laws of this country which vests in this Commission the
‘power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle
all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and
expenditures or uses of funds and property x x x
pertaining to the Government.’ (Sec. 2, Art. IX-D, Phil.
Const.).
‘Such brazen disregard of the fundamental law of this country
cannot be countenanced by this Commission.’
“In view of all the foregoing, you are hereby advised:

“1. To desist from proceeding with the audit of Joaquin

Cunanan & Co. of the Bank’s financial statements for the
year ending December 31, 1987.
“2. To refrain from making any payments out of the funds of
the Development Bank of the Philippines, in the event
that such audit services have already been rendered,
attention being invited to the following provisions of the
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines:

‘Sec. 108. General liability for unlawful expenditures.—

Expenditures of government funds or uses of government
property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal
liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible
therefore.’
“3. To restitute, within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof, the
total amount of P513,549.24 under CV Nos. 9136, 5014, 6201 and
4082 for professional services rendered in the audit of the 1986
financial operations of the Bank. Pursuant to the aforequoted
provisions of law, such unlawful expenditure is the personal
liability of the official directly responsible
20
therefore.
“Please be guided accordingly.”

On September 26, 1988, the DBP Chairman appealed the

letter-decision to the COA en banc. On May 20, 1989, the
COA en banc, in a letter-decision, denied the DBP’s appeal.
This letter-decision, now also assailed by the DBP, held
that:

“Upon a circumspect evaluation of the grounds upon which your

instant request is predicated, this Commission finds the same to
be devoid of

_______________

20 Supra, see note 2.

365

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 365

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

merit. As hereunder demonstrated, the justifications offered do

not inspire rational belief in the mind of this Commission.

“First, it bears stress that CB Circular No. 1124, series of 1986,

which has earlier been shown to be constitutionally and legally
infirm, cannot by any means possess any binding and conclusive
effect upon this Commission and, hence, may not be properly
invoked in support of the instant appeal.
“Secondly, it was not the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development which required the audit of
government banks by private auditing firm, but the Central Bank
itself.
“Thirdly, insofar as this Commission is concerned, PD 2029 is
an anachronism of sorts if viewed in the light of the present
Constitution recognizing this Commission as the supreme and
exclusive audit institution of the government. This is necessarily
implicit from the bare language of Section 2(1), Article IX-D
thereof which, despite the absence of the qualifying adjective
‘exclusive’ that anyway would be a surplusage, ought to be
reasonably construed as vesting in this Commission the ‘power,
authority, and duty’ to audit all government accounts to the
exclusion of any other person or entity, whether in the public or
the private sector. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A contrary
interpretation, such as that being pressed upon this Commission,
would reduce this constitutional ordinance to an absurdity
(reductio ad absurdum) as it thereby would give rise to the rather
confusing spectacle, as it were, of a government agency or
corporation being audited not only by this Commission but also
and in addition thereto by one or two or several private
accounting firms—cer-tainly a situation never intended by the
framers of the Constitution.
“Lastly, while this Commission has not lost sight of the letter
of then COA Chairman Guingona, Jr. to the DBP Chairman,
dated January 20, 1987, it has opted to be guided and influenced
by the more persuasive and controlling COA Circular No. 860254
dated March 24, 1986, which in categorical and precise terms
ordained that:

‘Accordingly, by way of reassertion and reaffirmation of its primary audit

jurisdiction, as herein above defined, the Commission on Audit hereby
issues the following directives:

1. Any ongoing audit of a government-owned and/or controlled

corporation or any of its subsidiaries or corporate offsprings being
conducted by a private auditor or accounting firm shall cease and
terminate on April 15, 1986. Henceforth, from and after said date,
the audit of said corporate entity shall be undertaken solely and
exclusively by the Commission on Audit, x x x.’

366

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

“Premises considered, it is regretted that your instant

21
request for
reconsideration has to be, as it is hereby, denied.”

Hence, on June 14, 1989 the DBP filed this petition for
review with prayer for a temporary restraining order,
assailing the two COA letter-decisions for being contrary to
the Constitution and existing laws. On June 15, 1989 this
Court issued a temporary restraining order directing the
COA to cease and desist from enforcing its challenged
letter-decisions. The Office of the Solicitor General, in a
Manifestation dated October 18, 1989, declined to appear
on behalf of the COA on the ground that the Solicitor
General was “taking a position adverse to that of the COA.”
Consequently, a private counsel on pro bono basis
represented the COA.

The Issues

The DBP’s petition raises the following issues:

1. Does the Constitution vest in the COA the sole and

exclusive power to examine and audit government
banks so as to prohibit concurrent audit by private
external auditors under any circumstance?
2. Is there an existing statute that prohibits
government banks from hiring private auditors in
addition to the COA? If there is none, is there an
 existing statute that authorizes government banks
to hire private auditors in addition to the COA?
3. If there is no legal impediment to the hiring by
government banks of a private auditor, was the
hiring by the DBF of a private auditor in the case at
bar necessary, and were the fees paid by DBP to the
private auditor reasonable, under the
circumstances?

The Court’s Ruling

The DBP’s petition is meritorious.

First Issue: Power of COA to Audit under the

Constitution

The resolution of the primordial issue of whether or not

the COA has the sole and exclusive power to examine and
audit government

_______________

21 Supra, see note 3.

367

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 367

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

banks involves an interpretation of Section 2, Article IX-D

of the 1987 Constitution. This Section provides as follows:

“Sec. 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power,

authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts
pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or
uses of funds and property, owned and held in trust by, or
pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters, x x x.
“(2) The Commission shall have the exclusive authority, subject
to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit
and examination, establish the techniques and methods required
therefore, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and
regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance
of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or
unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and
properties.” (Emphasis supplied)

The COA vigorously asserts that under the first paragraph

of Section 2, the COA enjoys the sole and exclusive power
to examine and audit all government agencies, including
the DBP. The COA contends this is similar to its sole and
exclusive authority, under the second paragraph of the
same Section, to define the scope of its audit, promulgate
auditing rules and regulations, including rules on the
disallowance of unnecessary expenditures of government
agencies. The bare language of Section 2, however, shows
that the COA’s power under the first paragraph is not
declared exclusive, while its authority under the second
paragraph is expressly declared “exclusive.” There is a
significant reason for this marked difference in language.
 During the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission, Commissioner Serafin Guingona proposed the
addition of the word “exclusive” in the first paragraph of
Section 2, thereby granting the COA the sole and exclusive
power to examine and audit all government agencies.
However, the Constitutional Commission rejected the
addition of the word “exclusive” in the first paragraph of
Section 2 and Guingona was forced to withdraw his
proposal. Commissioner Christian Monsod explained the
rejection in this manner:

368

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

“MR. MONSOD. Earlier Commissioner Guingona, in withdrawing

his amendment to add ‘EXCLUSIVE’ made a statement about the
preponderant right of COA.
“For the record, we would like to clarify the reason for not
including the word. First, we do not want an Article that would
constitute a disincentive or an obstacle to private investment.
There are government institutions with private investments in
them, and some of these investors—Filipinos, as well as in some
cases, foreigners—require the presence of private auditing firms,
not exclusively, but concurrently. So this does not take away the
power of the Commission on Audit. Second, there are certain
instances where private auditing may be required, like the listing
in the stock exchange. In other words, we do not want this
provision to be an unnecessary obstacle22 to privatization of these
companies or attraction of investments.” (Emphasis supplied)

Shortly thereafter, Commissioner Guingona attempted to

resurrect his amendment by proposing the following
provision:

“Private auditing firms may not examine or audit accounts

pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or
uses of funds and property owned or held in trust by or pertaining
to the Government 23
or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities.”

Guingona argued that a private audit in addition to the

COA audit would be a useless duplication and an
unnecessary expense on the part of government.
The Constitutional Commission also rejected this
proposed provision, after Commissioner Monsod made the
following explanation:

“MR. MONSOD. x x x But it is also a fact that even government

agencies, instrumentalities and subdivisions sometimes borrow
money from abroad. And if we are at all going to preclude the
possibility of any concurrent auditing, if that is required, and
insist that it is only exclusively the government which can audit,
we may be unnecessarily tying their hands without really
accomplishing much more than what we want. As long as the
COA is there, and the COA’s power cannot be eliminated by

_______________

22 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 5, p. 607.

23 Ibid., p. 614.

369
 VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 369
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

law, by decree or anything of that sort, then the government

funds are protected.
As far as the question of fees is concerned, this is always
negotiable. Besides, if one talks about auditing fees, these are
governed by certain regulations within the auditing profession,
beyond which auditing firms cannot go. Furthermore, the
government can always refuse to pay unconscionable fees. So,
that matter really is not that relevant. But I think what we want
to insist on is that there should be some flexibility so that a
procedural requirement does not 24
impede a substantive
transaction as long as COA is there.” (Emphasis supplied)

The rejection of Guingona’s second proposal put an end to

all efforts to grant the COA the sole and exclusive power to
examine and audit government agencies.
In sharp contrast, the Constitutional Commission placed
the word “exclusive” to qualify the authority of the COA
under the second paragraph of the same Section 2. The
word “exclusive” did not appear in the counterpart
provisions of25 Section 2 in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions. There is no dispute that the COA’s
authority under the second paragraph of Section 2 is
exclusive as the language of the Constitution admits of no
other meaning. Thus, the COA has the exclusive authority
to decide on disallowances of unnecessary government
expenditures. Other government agencies

_______________

24 Ibid.
25 Section 2, Article XI of the 1935 Constitution provided as follows:

“Section 2. The Auditor General shall examine, audit, and settle all accounts
pertaining to the receipts and revenues from whatever source, including trust
funds derived from bond issues, and audit, in accordance with law and
administrative regulations, all expenditures of funds or property pertaining to or
held in trust by the Government or the provinces or municipalities thereof, x x x.”
Section 2, Article XII-D of the 1973 Constitution provided as follows: “Sec. 2. The
Commission shall have the following powers and functions: (1) Examine, audit,
and settle, in accordance with law and regulations, all accounts pertaining to the
revenues, and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned
or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities including government-owned or controlled
corporations; x x x.”

370

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

and their officials, as well as private auditors engaged by

them, cannot in any way intrude into this exclusive
function of the COA.
The qualifying word “exclusive” in the second paragraph
of Section 2 cannot be applied to the first paragraph which
is another sub-section of Section 2. A qualifying word is
intended to refer only to the phrase to which it is
immediately associated, and not to a phrase distantly
26
 26
located in another paragraph or sub-section. Thus, the
first paragraph of Section 2 must be read the way it
appears, without the word “exclusive,” signifying that non-
COA auditors can also examine and audit government
agencies. Besides, the framers of the Constitution
intentionally omitted the word “exclusive” in the first
paragraph of Section 2 precisely to allow concurrent audit
by private external auditors.
The clear and unmistakable conclusion from a reading of
the entire Section 2 is that the COA’s power to examine
and audit is non-exclusive. On the other hand, the COA’s
authority to define the scope of its audit, promulgate
auditing rules and regulations, and disallow unnecessary
expenditures is exclusive.
Moreover, as the constitutionally mandated auditor of
all government agencies, the COA’s findings and
conclusions necessarily prevail over those of private
auditors, at least insofar as government agencies and
officials are concerned. The superiority or preponderance of
the COA audit over private audit can be gleaned from the
records of the Constitutional Commission, as follows:

“MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, after consultation with the

honorable members of the Committee, I have amended my
proposed amendment by deleting the word EXCLUSIVE because I
was made to understand that the Commission on Audit will still
have the27
preponderant power and authority to examine, audit and
settle.” (Emphasis supplied)

The findings and conclusions of the private auditor may

guide private investors or creditors who require such
private audit. Government agencies and officials, however,
remain bound by the findings and conclusions of the COA,
whether the matter falls

_______________

26 Felipe vs. De la Cruz, 99 Phil. 940 (1956); Tirona vs. Cudiamat, 14

SCRA 264 (1965).
27 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 5, p. 605.

371

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 371

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

under the first or second paragraph of Section 2, unless of

course such findings and conclusions are modified or
reversed by the courts.
The power of the COA to examine and audit government
agencies, while non-exclusive, cannot be taken away from
the COA. Section 3, Article IX-D of the Constitution
mandates that:

“Sec. 3. No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the

Government or its subsidiary in any guise whatsoever, or any
investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the
Commission on Audit.”

The mere fact that private auditors may audit government

agencies does not divest the COA of its power to examine
and audit the same government agencies. The COA is
neither by-passed nor ignored since even with a private
audit the COA will still conduct its usual examination and
audit, and its findings and conclusions will still bind
government agencies and their officials. A concurrent
private audit poses no danger whatsoever of public funds or
assets escaping the usual scrutiny of a COA audit.
Manifestly, the express language of the Constitution,
and the clear intent of its framers, point to only one
indubitable conclusion—the COA does not have the
exclusive power to examine and audit government
agencies. The framers of the Constitution were fully aware
of the need to allow independent private audit of certain
government agencies in addition to the COA audit, as when
there is a private investment in a government-controlled
corporation, or when a government corporation is
privatized or publicly listed, or as in the case at bar when
the government borrows money from abroad.
In these instances the government enters the
marketplace and competes with the rest of the world in
attracting investments or loans. To succeed, the
government must abide with the reasonable business
practices of the marketplace. Otherwise no investor or
creditor will do business with the government, frustrating
government efforts to attract investments or secure loans
that may be critical to stimulate moribund industries or
resuscitate a badly shattered national economy as in the
case at bar. By design the Constitution is flexible enough to
meet these exigencies. Any at-
372

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

tempt to nullify this flexibility in the instances mentioned,

or in similar instances, will be ultra vires, in the absence of
a statute limiting or removing such flexibility.
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
reveal eloquently the intent of Section 2, Article IX-D of the
Constitution. As this Court has ruled repeatedly, the intent
of the law
28
is the controlling factor in the interpretation of
the law. If a law needs interpretation,
29
the most dominant
influence is the intent of the law. The intent of the law is
that which is expressed in the words of the law, which
should be discovered within its 30four corners aided, if
necessary, by its legislative history. In the case of Section
2, Article IX-D of the Constitution, the intent of the
framers of the Constitution is evident from the bare
language of Section 2 itself. The deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission confirm expressly and even
elucidate further this intent beyond any doubt whatsoever.
There is another constitutional barrier to the COA’s
insistence of exclusive power to examine and audit all
government agencies. The COA’s claim clashes directly
with the Central Bank’s constitutional power of
“supervision” over banks under Section 20, Article XII of
the Constitution. This provision states as follows:

“Sec. 20. The Congress shall establish an independent central

monetary authority, the members of whose governing board must
be natural-born Filipino citizens, of known probity, integrity, and
patriotism, the majority of whom shall come from the private
sector. They shall also be subject to such other qualifications and
disabilities as may be prescribed by law. The authority shall
provide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and
credit. It shall have supervision over the operations of banks and
exercise such regulatory powers as may be provided by law over
the operations of finance companies and other institutions
performing similar functions.” (Emphasis supplied)

_______________

28 People vs. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542 (1978); Yellow Taxi & Pasay
Transport Workers’ Union vs. Manila Yellow Taxi Cab. Co., 80 Phil. 833
(1948); Ledesma vs. Pictain, 79 Phil. 95 (1947); Torres vs. Limjap, 56 Phil
141 (1931).
29 De Jesus vs. City of Manila, 29 Phil. 73 (1914).
30 Manila Lodge No. 761 vs. Court of Appeals, 73 SCRA 162 (1976).

373

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 373

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

Historically, the Central Bank has been conducting

periodic and special examination and audit of banks to
determine the soundness of their operations and the safety
of the deposits of the public. Undeniably, the Central
Bank’s power of “supervision” includes the power to
examine and audit banks, as the banking laws31have always
recognized this power of the Central Bank. Hence, the
COA’s power to examine and audit government banks must
be reconciled with the Central Bank’s power to supervise
the same banks. The inevitable conclusion is that the COA
and the Central Bank have concurrent jurisdiction, under
the Constitution, to examine and audit government banks.
However, despite the Central Bank’s concurrent
jurisdiction over government banks, the COA’s audit still
prevails over that of the Central Bank since the COA is the
constitutionally mandated auditor of government banks.
And in matters falling under the second paragraph of
Section 2, Article IX-D of the Constitution, the COA’s
jurisdiction is exclusive. Thus, the Central Bank is devoid
of authority to allow or disallow expenditures of
government banks since this function belongs exclusively to
the COA.

Second Issue: Statutes Prohibiting or Authorizing

Private Auditors

The COA argues that Sections 26, 31 and 32 of PD No.

1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code
of the Philippines, prohibit the hiring of private auditors by
government agencies. Section 26 of PD No. 1445 provides
that:

“Section 26. General Jurisdiction.—The authority and powers of

the Commission shall extend to and comprehend all matters
relating to auditing procedures, systems and controls, the keeping
of the general accounts of the Government, the preservation of
vouchers pertaining thereto for a period of ten years, the
examination and inspection of the books, records, and papers
relating to those accounts; and the audit and settlement of the
accounts of all persons respecting funds or property received or
held by them in an accountable capacity, as well as the exami-
_______________

31 Section 6-D, General Banking Act (RA No. 337); Section 58, General Banking
Law of 2000 (RA No. 8791); Sections 25 and 28, Central Bank Act (RA No. 265);
Sections 25 and 28, New Central Bank Act (RA No. 7653).

374

374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

nation, audit, and settlement of all debts and claims of any sort
due or owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities. The said jurisdiction extends to all
government-owned or controlled corporations, including their
subsidiaries, and other self-governing boards, commissions, or
agencies of the Government, and as herein prescribed, including
non-governmental entities subsidized by the government, those
funded by donations through the government, those required to
pay levies or government share, and those for which the
government has put up a counterpart fund or those partly funded
by the government.”

Section 26 defines the extent and scope of the powers of the

COA. Considering the comprehensive definition in Section
26, the COA’s jurisdiction covers all government agencies,
offices, bureaus and units, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and even non-government entities
enjoying subsidy from the government. However, there is
nothing in Section 26 that states, expressly or impliedly,
that the COA’s power to examine and audit government
banks is exclusive, thereby preventing private audit of
government agencies concurrently with the COA audit.
Section 26 is a definition of the COA’s “general
jurisdiction.” Jurisdiction may be exclusive or concurrent.
Section 26 of PD No. 1445 does not state that the COA’s
jurisdiction is exclusive, and there are other laws providing
for concurrent jurisdiction. Thus, Section 32
26 must be
applied in harmony with Section 58 of the General
Banking Law of 2000 (RA No. 8791) which authorizes
unequivocally the Monetary Board to require banks to hire
inde-

_______________

32 Previously, Section 6-D of the General Banking Act (RA No. 337)
which provided as follows: “The Monetary Board may, at its discretion, in
specific cases where the circumstances so warrant, require a bank to
engage the services of an independent auditor to be chosen by the bank
concerned from a list of certified public accountants acceptable to the
Monetary Board. The terms of engagement shall be as prescribed by the
Monetary Board which may either be on a continuing basis where the
auditor shall act as a resident examiner, or on the basis of special
engagements, but in any case, the independent auditor shall be
responsible not only to the bank’s board of directors, but to the Monetary
Board as well: x x x.”

375

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 375

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit
pendent auditors. Section 58 of the General Banking Law
of 2000 states as follows:

“Section 58. Independent Auditor.—The Monetary Board may

require a bank, quasi-bank or trust entity to engage the services of
an independent auditor to be chosen by the bank, quasi-bank or
trust entity concerned from a list of certified public accountants
acceptable to the Monetary Board. The term of the engagement
shall be as prescribed by the Monetary Board which may either be
on a continuing basis where the auditor shall act as resident
examiner, or on the basis of special engagements; but in any case,
the independent auditor shall be responsible to the bank’s, quasi-
bank’s or trust entity’s board of directors. A copy of the report
shall be furnished to the Monetary Board, x x x.” (Emphasis
supplied)

Moreover, Section 26 must

33
also be applied in conformity
with Sections 25 and 28 of the New Central Bank Act (RA
No. 7653) which authorize expressly the Monetary Board to
conduct periodic or special examination of all banks.
Sections 25 and 28 of the New Central Bank Act state as
follows:

“Sec. 25. Supervision and Examination.—The Bangko Sentral

shall have supervision over, and conduct periodic or special
examinations of, banking institutions x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
“Sec. 28. Examination and Fees.—The supervising and
examining department head, personally or by deputy, shall
examine the books of every

_______________

33 Previously, Sections 25 and 28 of the Central Bank Act (RA No. 265). Section
25 of this Act provided as follows: “Creation of Appropriate Departments, x x x
[T]he Central Bank shall have appropriate supervising and examining
departments which shall be charged with the supervision and periodic or special
examinations of banking institutions operating in the Philippines, including all
Government credit institutions, including their subsidiaries and affiliates, x x x.”
Section 28 of the same Act provided as follows: “Examination and Fees. It shall
be the duty of the head of the appropriate supervising and examining department,
personally or by deputy, at least once in every twelve months, and at such other
times as either he or the Monetary Board may deem expedient, to make an
examination of the books of every banking institution within the purview of this
Act and to make a report on the same to the Monetary Board.”

376

376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

banking institution once in every twelve (12) months, and at such

other time as the Monetary Board by an affirmative vote of five
(5) members may deem expedient and to make a report on the
same to the Monetary Board: x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)

The power vested in the Monetary Board under Section 58

of the General Banking Law of 2000, and Sections 25 and
28 of the New Central Bank Act, emanates from the
Central Bank’s explicit constitutional mandate to exercise
“supervision over the operations of banks.” Under Section 4
of the General
34
Banking Law of 2000, the term
“supervision” is defined as follows:
“Section 4. Supervisory Powers.—The operations and activities of
banks shall be subject to supervision of the Bangko Sentral.
“Supervision” shall include the following:

xxx
4.2. The conduct of examination to determine compliance with laws
and regulations if the circumstances so warrant as determined by the
Monetary Board;
xxx
4.4. Regular investigation which shall not be oftener than once a year
from the last date of examination to determine whether an institution is
conducting its business on a safe or sound basis: Provided, That the
deficiencies/irregularities found by or discovered by an audit shall
immediately be addressed;
x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, under existing laws, the COA does not have the
sole and exclusive power to examine and audit government
banks. The Central Bank has concurrent jurisdiction to
examine and audit, or cause the examination and audit, of
government banks.

_______________

34 The term “supervision” was defined under Section 2 (e) of the

General Banking Act (RA No. 337) to “include not only the issuance of
rules, but also the overseeing to ascertain that regulations are complied
with, investigating or examining to determine whether an institution is
conducting its business on a sound financial basis, and inquiring into the
solvency and liquidity of the institution.”

377

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 377

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

Section 31 of PD No. 1445, another provision of law claimed

by the COA to prohibit the hiring of private auditors by
government agencies, provides as follows:

“Section 31. Deputization of private licensed professionals to assist

government auditors.—(1) The Commission may, when the
exigencies of the service so require, deputize and retain in the
name of the Commission such certified public accountants and
other licensed professionals not in the public service as it may
deem necessary to assist government auditors in undertaking
specialized audit engagements.
“(2) The deputized professionals shall be entitled to such
compensation and allowances as may be stipulated, subject to
pertinent rules and regulations on compensation and fees.”

According to the COA, Section 31 is the maximum extent

that private auditors can participate in auditing
government agencies and anything beyond this is without
legal basis. Hence, the COA maintains that the hiring of
private auditors who act in their own name and operate
independently of the COA is unlawful.
Section 31 is bereft of any language that prohibits,
expressly or impliedly, the hiring of private auditors by
government agencies. This provision of law merely grants
authority to the COA to hire and deputize private auditors
to assist the COA in the auditing of government agencies.
Such private auditors operate under the authority of the
COA. By no stretch of statutory construction can this
provision be interpreted as an absolute statutory ban on
the hiring of private auditors by government agencies.
Evidently, the language of the law does not support the
COA’s claim.
Moreover, the COA further contends that Section 32 of
PD No. 1445 is another provision of law that prohibits the
hiring of private auditors by government agencies. Section
32 provides as follows:

“Section 32. Government contracts for auditing, accounting, and

related services.—(1) No government agency shall enter into any
contract with any private person or firm for services to undertake
studies and services relating to government auditing, including
services to conduct, for a fee, seminars or workshops for
government personnel on these topics, unless the proposed
contract is first submitted to the Commission to enable it to
determine if it has the resources to undertake such studies or

378

378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit

services. The Commission may engage the services of experts from

the public or private sector in the conduct of these studies.
“(2) Should the Commission decide not to undertake the study
or service, it shall nonetheless have the power to review the
contract in order to determine the reasonableness of its costs.”
(Emphasis supplied)

Section 32 refers to contracts for studies and services

“relating to government auditing” which the COA may or
may not want to undertake itself for a government agency.
Stated another way, Section 32 speaks of studies and
services that the COA may choose not to render to a
government agency. Obviously, the subject of these
contracts is not the audit itself of a government agency
because the COA is compelled to undertake such audit and
cannot choose not to conduct such audit. The Constitution
and existing law mandate the COA to audit all government
agencies. Section 2, Article IX-D of the Constitution
commands that the COA “shall have the x x x duty to
examine, audit, and settle all accounts” of government
agencies (Emphasis supplied). Similarly, the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987 directs that the “Commission
on Audit shall have 35the x x x duty to examine, audit, and
settle all accounts” of government agencies (Emphasis
supplied). Hence, the COA cannot refuse to audit
government agencies under any circumstance.
The subject of the contracts referred to in Section 32 is
necessarily limited to studies, seminars, workshops,
researches and other services on government auditing
which the COA may or may not undertake at its discretion,
thereby excluding the audit itself of government agencies.
Since the COA personnel have the experience on
government auditing and are in fact the experts on this
subject, it is only proper for the COA to be granted the
right of first refusal to undertake such services if required
by government agencies. This is what Section 32 is all
about and nothing more. Plainly, there is nothing in
Section 32 which prohibits the hiring of private auditors to
audit government agencies concurrently with the COA
audit.
_______________

35 Section 11, Chapter 4, Subtitle B, Title I, Book V, Revised

Administrative Code of 1987.

379

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 379

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

On the other
36
hand, the DBP cites Central Bank Circular
No. 1124 as legal basis for hiring a private auditor. This
Circular amended Subsection 1165.5 (Book I) of the
Manual of Regulations for Banks and other Financial
Intermediaries to require “[E]ach bank, whether
government-owned or controlled or private, x x x (to) cause
an annual financial audit to be conducted by an external
auditor x x x.” Moreover, the Circular states that the “audit
of a government-owned or controlled bank by an external
independent auditor shall be in addition to and without
prejudice to that conducted by the Commission on Audit in
the discharge of its mandate under existing law.”
Furthermore, the Circular provides that the “requirement
for an annual audit by an external independent auditor
shall extend to specialized and unique government banks
such as the Land Bank of the Philippines and the
Development Bank of the Philippines.”
The Central Bank promulgated Circular No. 1124 on
December 5, 1986 pursuant to its power under the Freedom
Constitution, the fundamental law then in force, as well as
pursuant to its general rule making authority under the
General Banking Act (RA No. 337), the banking law in
effect at that time. Under the Freedom Constitution, the
Central Bank exercised supervisory authority over the
banking system. Section 14, Article XV of the 1973
Constitution, which was re-adopted in the Freedom
Constitution, provided as follows:

“SEC. 14. The Batasang Pambansa shall establish a central

monetary authority which shall provide policy direction in the
areas of money, banking and credit. It shall have supervisory
authority over the operations of banks and exercise such
regulatory authority as may be provided by law over the
operations of finance companies and other institutions performing
similar functions. Until the Batasang Pambansa shall otherwise
provide, the Central Bank of the Philippines, operating under
existing laws, shall function as the central monetary authority.”
(Emphasis supplied)

Section 6-D of the General Banking Act (RA No. 337)

vested the Monetary Board with the specific power to
“require a bank to engage the services of an independent
auditor to be chosen by the

_______________

36 Supra, see note 6.

380

380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
 Audit

bank concerned from a list of certified public accountants

acceptable to the Monetary Board.”
The 1987 Constitution created an independent central
monetary authority with substantially the same powers as
the Central Bank under the 1973 Constitution and the
Freedom Constitution. Section 20, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution provides that the Monetary Board “shall have
supervision over the operations of banks.” The specific
power of the Central Bank under the General Banking Act
(RA No. 337) to require an independent audit of banks was
re-enacted in Section 58 of the General Banking Law of
2000 (RA No. 8791).
Indubitably, the Central Bank had the express
constitutional and statutory power to promulgate Circular
No. 1124 on December 5, 1986. The power granted to the
Central Bank to issue Circular No. 1124 with respect to the
independent audit of banks is direct, unambiguous, and
beyond dispute. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, which
succeeded the Central Bank, retained under the 1987
Constitution and the General Banking Law of 2000 (RA
No. 8791) the same constitutional and statutory power the
Central Bank had under the Freedom Constitution and the
General Banking Act (RA No. 337) with respect to the
independent audit of banks.
Circular No. 112437has the force and effect of law. In a
long line of decisions, this Court has held consistently that
the rules and regulations issued by the Central Bank
pursuant to its supervisory and regulatory powers have the
force and effect of law. The DBP, being a bank under the
constitutional and statutory supervision of the Central
Bank, was under a clear legal obligation to comply with the
requirement of Circular No. 1124 on the private audit of
banks. Refusal by the DBP to comply with the Circular
would have rendered the DBP and its officers liable to the
penal provisions of

_______________

37 Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank vs. Navarro, 152 SCRA 346
(1987); Gonzalo Sy Trading vs. Central Bank, 70 SCRA 570 (1976);
Batchelder vs. Central Bank, 46 SCRA 102 (1972); People vs. Que Po Lay,
94 Phil. 640 (1954).

381

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 381

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

38
the General Banking Act, as well as the administrative
39
and penal sanctions under the Central Bank Act.
The DBP also relies on Section 8 of PD No. 2029 as its
statutory basis for hiring a private auditor. This Section
states in part as follows:

“The audit of government corporations by the Commission on

Audit shall not preclude government corporations from engaging
the services of private auditing firms: Provided, however, that
even if the services of the latter are availed of, the audit report of
the Commission on Audit shall serve as the report for purposes of
compliance with audit requirements as required of government
corporations under applicable law.”

Section 8 of PD No. 2029, however, also provides that the

“policy of withdrawal of resident auditors shall be fully
implemented x x x.” Section 2 of the same decree also
excludes from the term “government-owned or controlled
corporation” two classes of corporations. The first are
originally private corporations the majority of the shares of
stock of which are acquired by government financial

_______________

38 Section 87 of RA No. 337 provided as follows: “Unless otherwise

provided herein, the violation of any of the provisions of this Act shall be
punished by a fine of not more than two thousand pesos or by
imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, x x x.” This provision
is now Section 66 of the General Banking Law of 2000.
39 Section 34 of RA No. 265 provided as follows: “Whenever any person
or entity willfully violates this Act or any order, instruction, rule, or
regulation issued by the Monetary Board, the person or persons
responsible for such violation shall be punished by a fine of not more than
twenty thousand pesos and by imprisonment of not more than five years.”
This provision is now Section 36 of the New Central Bank Act (RA No.
7653).

Section 34-A of RA No. 265 provided as follows: “The Monetary Board is hereby
authorized, at its discretion, to impose upon banking institutions, their directors
and/or officers, x x x for any willful failure or refusal to comply with, or violation
of, any banking law or any order, instruction or regulation issued by the Monetary
Board, x x x the following administrative sanctions: (a) Fines in amounts as may
be determined by the Monetary Board to be appropriate, but in no case to exceed
five thousand pesos a day for each type of violation, x x x; (b) Suspension, or
removal of directors and/or officers; x x x.” This provision is now Section 37 of the
New Central Bank Act.

382

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

institutions through foreclosure or dacion en pago. The

second are subsidiary corporations of government
corporations, which subsidiaries are organized exclusively
to own, manage or lease physical assets acquired by
government financial institutions through foreclosure or
dacion en pago. Claiming that PD No. 2029 operates to
exempt certain government-owned corporations from the
COA’s jurisdiction in violation of Section 3, Article IX-D of
the Constitution, the COA is questioning the
constitutionality of PD No. 2029.
There is, however, no compelling need to pass upon the
constitutionality of PD No. 2029 because the Constitution
and existing banking laws allow such hiring. The issues
raised in this case can be resolved adequately without
resolving the constitutionality of PD No. 2029. This Court
will leave the issue of the constitutionality of PD No. 2029
to be settled in another
40
case where its resolution is an
absolute necessity.

Third Issue: Necessity of Private Auditor and

Reasonableness of the Fees
The remaining issue to be resolved is whether or not the
DBP’s hiring of a private auditor was necessary and the
fees it paid reasonable under the circumstances. The hiring
by the DBP of a private auditor was a condition imposed by
the World Bank for the grant to the Philippine government
in early 1987 of a US$310 million Economic Recovery Loan,
at a time when the government desperately needed funds
to revive a badly battered economy. One of the salient
objectives of the US$310 million loan was the
rehabilitation of the DBP which was then burdened with
enormous bad loans. The rehabilitation of the DBF was
important in the overall recovery of the national economy.
On February 23, 1986, the World Bank President
reported to the Bank’s Executive Directors that the
privately audited accounts of the DBF for 1986 and 1987
“will be a requirement for the releases of the second and
third tranches, respectively, of the ERL” (Emphasis
supplied). Moreover, the Agreed Minutes of Negotiations on

_______________

40 Alger vs. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 37 (1985).

383

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 383

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

41
the Philippine Economic Recovery Program signed by the
Philippine government and World Bank negotiating panels
on January 8, 1987, required that “a copy of COA’s letter x
x x regarding DBP’s appointment of a private external
auditor will be sent to the (World) Bank before the
distribution of the loan documents to the Bank’s Board,
along with a copy of the scope of audit as approved by COA
and satisfactory to the Bank” (Emphasis supplied).
As a creditor, the World Bank needed the private audit
for its own information to monitor the progress of the
DBP’s rehabilitation. This is apparent from the said Agreed
Minutes which provided that the “general terms of
reference (for the hiring of private external audit) were
discussed during the negotiations and form part of the
World Bank’s guidelines42
for financial information on
financial institutions” (Emphasis supplied).
The hiring of a private auditor being an express
condition for the grant of the US$310 million Economic
Recovery Loan, a major objective of which was the DBP’s
rehabilitation, the same was a necessary corporate act on
the part of the DBP. The national government, represented
by the Central Bank Governor, as well as the Ministers of
Finance, Trade, and Economic Planning, had already
committed to the hiring by all government banks of private
auditors in addition to the COA. For the DBP to refuse to
hire a private auditor would have aborted the vital loan
and derailed the national economic recovery, resulting in
grave consequences to the entire nation. The hiring of a
private auditor was not only necessary based on the
government’s loan covenant with the World Bank, it was
also necessary because it was mandated by Central Bank
Circular No. 1124 under pain of administrative and penal
sanctions.
 The last matter to determine is the reasonableness of
the fees charged by Joaquin C. Cunanan & Co., the private
auditor hired by the DBP. The COA describes the private
auditor’s fees as an “excessive, extravagant or
unconscionable expenditure” of government funds. For the
audit of the DBP’s financial statements in 1986, the

_______________

41 Supra, see note 9.

42 Ibid.

384

384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on
Audit

43
private auditor billed the DBP the amount of P487,321.14.
In 1987, the 44private auditor billed the DBP the amount of
P529,947.00. In comparison, 45
the COA billed the DBP an46
audit fee of P27,015,963.00 in 1988, and P15,421,662.00
in 1989. Even granting 47
that the COA’s scope of audit
services was broader, still it could not be said that the
private auditor’s fees are excessive, extravagant or
unconscionable compared to the COA’s billings.
The hiring of a private auditor by the DBP being a
condition of the US$310 million World Bank loan to the
Philippine government, the fees of such private auditor are
in reality part of the government’s cost of borrowing from
the World Bank. The audit report of the private auditor 48
is
primarily intended for the World Bank’s information on
the financial status of the DBP whose rehabilitation was
one of the objectives of the loan. An annual private audit
fee of about half a million pesos added to the interest on a
US$310 million loan would hardly make the cost of
borrowing excessive, extravagant or unconscionable.
Besides, the condition imposed by a lender, whose money is
at risk, requiring the borrower or its majority-owned
subsidiaries to submit to audit by an independent public
accountant, is a reasonable and normal business practice.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
letter-decision of the Chairman of the Commission on Audit
dated August 29, 1988, and the letter-decision promulgated
by the Commission on Audit en banc dated May 20, 1989,
are hereby SET ASIDE, and the temporary restraining
order issued by the court enjoining re-

_______________

43 Supra, see note 17.

44 Ibid.
45 Rollo, p. 365, footnote 7, Memorandum for the Respondent dated
October 7, 1990. See also Rollo, pp. 319-322, Petitioner’s Reply to
Comment dated June 20, 1990, Annexes “A” and “B.”
46 Ibid.
47 The scope of the COA’s audit covers financial audit, compliance
audit, and management audit. Private external audit generally covers
only financial audit. Rollo, p. 209, Respondent’s Comment dated January
25, 1990.
48 Supra, see note 9, Agreed Minutes of Negotiations on the Philippine
Economic Recovery Program.
 385

VOL. 373, JANUARY 16, 2002 385

AF Realty & Development, Inc. vs. Dieselman Freight
Services, Co.

spondent Commission on Audit from enforcing the said

decisions is hereby made PERMANENT.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,

Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo,
Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-
Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, letter decisions of August 29, 1988 and

May 20, 1989 set aside. Temporary restraining order made
permanent.

Note.—The Commission on Audit has the power,

authority and duty to examine all accounts of the
Government or any of its agencies or instrumentality.
(Osmeña vs. Commission on Audit, 230 SCRA 585 [1994])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.