October 1982 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > October 1982 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-61676 October 18, 1982 - EDITHA B. SALIGUMBA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.
203 Phil. 34:
203 Phil. 34:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-61676. October 18, 1982.]
EDITHA B. SALIGUMBA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND LEONARDO ESTELLA, Respondents.
Torcuato L. Galon for Petitioner.
SYNOPSIS
On the basis of a sworn complaint of petitioner, respondent Commission on Audit (COA) instituted an administrative case against private respondent, an Auditing Examiner in the Auditor’s Office of Misamis Occidental, for allegedly raping petitioner on several occasions. Respondent Commission, however, dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence but warned private respondent to comport himself in such a manner as would forest all the filing of similar complaints in the future. Hence, this petition for review wherein petitioner insists that the decision of respondent Commission is contrary to evidence.
The Supreme Court held that its power to review decisions of the Commission on Audit refers to money matters and not to administrative cases involving the discipline of its personnel; and that even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to review COA decisions on administrative matters as to personnel discipline, it cannot do soon factual issues because its power to review is limited to legal issues.
Petition dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that its power to review decisions of the Commission on Audit refers to money matters and not to administrative cases involving the discipline of its personnel; and that even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to review COA decisions on administrative matters as to personnel discipline, it cannot do soon factual issues because its power to review is limited to legal issues.
Petition dismissed.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; JUDICIARY; SUPREME COURT; POWER TO REVIEW DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT; REFFERS TO MONEY MATTERS AND NOT. APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE CASES INVOLVING PERSONNEL DISCIPLINE. — The power of the Supreme Court to review decisions of the Commission on Audit refers to money matters and not to administrative cases involving the discipline of its personnel.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LIMITED TO LEGAL ISSUES. — Even assuming that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Commission on Audit on administrative matters as to personnel discipline, the Court cannot do so on factual issues because its power to review is limited to legal issues.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LIMITED TO LEGAL ISSUES. — Even assuming that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Commission on Audit on administrative matters as to personnel discipline, the Court cannot do so on factual issues because its power to review is limited to legal issues.
R E S O L U T I O N
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
This is a petition to review the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA) in Administrative Case No. 81-525 for disgraceful and immoral conduct.
On the basis of the sworn complaint of Editha Saligumba, the COA instituted the administrative case against Leonardo Estella, Auditing Examiner III, in the Auditor’s Office of Misamis Occidental. The charge was that the respondent raped Editha Saligumba on several occasions.
On April 12, 1982, the COA rendered a decision with the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Wherefore, for insufficiency of evidence, the instant charge is hereby dropped. Respondent is, however, warned to comfort himself henceforth in such a manner as would forestall the filing of similar complaints in the future."cralaw virtua1aw library
Editha Saligumba now wants Us to review the COA decision. She insists that the decision of the COA is contrary to the evidence. Thus, she raises these "vital issues" :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"a) Was the petitioner raped on three (3) occasions by respondent Estella, with grave abuse of confidence?
"b) Was petitioner fabricating her charges against the respondent?
"c) Is respondent Estella the father of the child of the petitioner by his maneuvers of amicable settlement indicating his guilt?
"d) Whose testimonies are more credible, that of petitioner or that of respondent Estella including their witnesses?
"e) Is respondent Estella guilty of immorality and fit to be dismissed from service?
"f) Is the commission on audit ignoring the evidence on record of the petitioner, because the investigating lawyer who received the evidence in Oroquieta City, Philippines; the mother of the investigator, is the superior of respondent Estella’s wife as a classroom teacher?"
The petition has to be dismissed for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Our power to review COA decisions refers to money matters and not to administrative cases involving the discipline of its personnel.
2. Even assuming that We have jurisdiction to review decisions on administrative matters as mentioned above, We can not do so on factual issues; Our power to review is limited to legal issues.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
On the basis of the sworn complaint of Editha Saligumba, the COA instituted the administrative case against Leonardo Estella, Auditing Examiner III, in the Auditor’s Office of Misamis Occidental. The charge was that the respondent raped Editha Saligumba on several occasions.
On April 12, 1982, the COA rendered a decision with the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Wherefore, for insufficiency of evidence, the instant charge is hereby dropped. Respondent is, however, warned to comfort himself henceforth in such a manner as would forestall the filing of similar complaints in the future."cralaw virtua1aw library
Editha Saligumba now wants Us to review the COA decision. She insists that the decision of the COA is contrary to the evidence. Thus, she raises these "vital issues" :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"a) Was the petitioner raped on three (3) occasions by respondent Estella, with grave abuse of confidence?
"b) Was petitioner fabricating her charges against the respondent?
"c) Is respondent Estella the father of the child of the petitioner by his maneuvers of amicable settlement indicating his guilt?
"d) Whose testimonies are more credible, that of petitioner or that of respondent Estella including their witnesses?
"e) Is respondent Estella guilty of immorality and fit to be dismissed from service?
"f) Is the commission on audit ignoring the evidence on record of the petitioner, because the investigating lawyer who received the evidence in Oroquieta City, Philippines; the mother of the investigator, is the superior of respondent Estella’s wife as a classroom teacher?"
The petition has to be dismissed for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Our power to review COA decisions refers to money matters and not to administrative cases involving the discipline of its personnel.
2. Even assuming that We have jurisdiction to review decisions on administrative matters as mentioned above, We can not do so on factual issues; Our power to review is limited to legal issues.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.
