November 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > November 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181943 : November 17, 2009] JUDGE ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR. AND PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION V. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT:
[G.R. No. 181943 : November 17, 2009]
JUDGE ANTONIO M. EUGENIO, JR. AND PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION V. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated November 17, 2009
G.R. No. 181943 (Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr. and Philippine Judges Association v. The Commission on Audit).
This deals with an action to enjoin the remittance by this Court's administrative office of the interest accruing on deposits designated as Fiduciary Fund and any forfeited amounts from performance bonds to the Bureau o[ Treasury as part of the General Fund that has become moot in view of subsequent actions of the Court.
On July 18, 1984 Presidential Decree 1949, also blown as the JDF Law, established the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) to upgrade the economic conditions of the members and personnel of the judiciary, preserve that organization's independence, and safeguard the integrity of its members.[1] The law decreed that the funds of the JDF shall be sourced from, "among others, the increase in the legal fees prescribed in the amendments to Rule 141 of the Rules of Court to be promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.[2]
On September 14, 1999, the Supreme Court promulgated A.M. 99-8-01-SC, the rules and regulations implementing the above decree. Among the sources of funds for the JDF enumerated in these rules are the interests on deposits designated as Fiduciary Funds and confiscated or forfeited bonds.
On April 23, 2003, however, Congress enacted Republic Act 9206 or the General Appropriations Act of 2003, which provided that any interest accruing on deposits and any forfeited amounts from performance bonds and deposits shall be deposited with the National Treasury to accrue to the General Fund.
Invoking the above law, on March 28, 2005 the Commission on Audit (COA), through its Supervising Auditor for the Judiciary, issued Audit Observation Memorandum 05-008-101-(04) (the ADM), informing the Chief Justice that the Court failed to remit to the Bureau of Treasury the interests earned on the Fiduciary Fund as well as the proceeds of confiscated or forfeited bonds, contrary to Sec. 7 of RA 9206.
To resolve the conflict between the COA's AOM and the Court's A.M. 99-8-01-SC, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Attorney, the Chief of Office of Administrative Services, and the Chief of Fiscal Management and Budget Office for evaluation, report, and recommendation. Although all three officials recommended that the Court set aside the AOM, considering the clear authority of the Court to generate sources for the JDF, the Court, in its En Bane Resolution A.M. 05-3-35-SC of January 31, 2006, directed the Fiscal Management & Budget Office to comply with the AOVI and remit the interests earned on the Fiduciary Funds and the confiscated or forfeited bonds. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration of the Office of the Court Administrator on March 11, 2008.
A week later, on March 18, 2008, petitioners Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr. and the Philippine Judges Association (PJA),[3] an association of Regional Trial Court judges, filed the present petition against the COA, claiming that it committed grave abuse of discretion in demanding remittance to the national government of the interests on the Fiduciary Fund and the confiscated or forfeited bonds, since the General Appropriations Act cannot repeal by implication the JDF Law which specifically provides for the inclusion of interests earned by the JDF as part of the same.
Required to comment, the COA pointed out that the question raised had become academic, given the Court's issuance of its En Banc Resolution A.M. 05-3-35-SC dated January 31, 2006 that directed the remittance of the disputed earnings to the national treasury.[4]
While the Court appreciates petitioners' sense of duty in defending the powers of the judiciary, it must dismiss the petition for being moot. Indeed, the Court Administrator has already complied with what the Court directed by issuing guidelines for its implementation.[5] These should be complied with.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition on the ground that the issue it raised has become moot."
Corona, Velasco, Jr., and Peralta, J.J., on official leave,
G.R. No. 181943 (Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr. and Philippine Judges Association v. The Commission on Audit).
This deals with an action to enjoin the remittance by this Court's administrative office of the interest accruing on deposits designated as Fiduciary Fund and any forfeited amounts from performance bonds to the Bureau o[ Treasury as part of the General Fund that has become moot in view of subsequent actions of the Court.
On July 18, 1984 Presidential Decree 1949, also blown as the JDF Law, established the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) to upgrade the economic conditions of the members and personnel of the judiciary, preserve that organization's independence, and safeguard the integrity of its members.[1] The law decreed that the funds of the JDF shall be sourced from, "among others, the increase in the legal fees prescribed in the amendments to Rule 141 of the Rules of Court to be promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.[2]
On September 14, 1999, the Supreme Court promulgated A.M. 99-8-01-SC, the rules and regulations implementing the above decree. Among the sources of funds for the JDF enumerated in these rules are the interests on deposits designated as Fiduciary Funds and confiscated or forfeited bonds.
On April 23, 2003, however, Congress enacted Republic Act 9206 or the General Appropriations Act of 2003, which provided that any interest accruing on deposits and any forfeited amounts from performance bonds and deposits shall be deposited with the National Treasury to accrue to the General Fund.
Invoking the above law, on March 28, 2005 the Commission on Audit (COA), through its Supervising Auditor for the Judiciary, issued Audit Observation Memorandum 05-008-101-(04) (the ADM), informing the Chief Justice that the Court failed to remit to the Bureau of Treasury the interests earned on the Fiduciary Fund as well as the proceeds of confiscated or forfeited bonds, contrary to Sec. 7 of RA 9206.
To resolve the conflict between the COA's AOM and the Court's A.M. 99-8-01-SC, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Attorney, the Chief of Office of Administrative Services, and the Chief of Fiscal Management and Budget Office for evaluation, report, and recommendation. Although all three officials recommended that the Court set aside the AOM, considering the clear authority of the Court to generate sources for the JDF, the Court, in its En Bane Resolution A.M. 05-3-35-SC of January 31, 2006, directed the Fiscal Management & Budget Office to comply with the AOVI and remit the interests earned on the Fiduciary Funds and the confiscated or forfeited bonds. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration of the Office of the Court Administrator on March 11, 2008.
A week later, on March 18, 2008, petitioners Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr. and the Philippine Judges Association (PJA),[3] an association of Regional Trial Court judges, filed the present petition against the COA, claiming that it committed grave abuse of discretion in demanding remittance to the national government of the interests on the Fiduciary Fund and the confiscated or forfeited bonds, since the General Appropriations Act cannot repeal by implication the JDF Law which specifically provides for the inclusion of interests earned by the JDF as part of the same.
Required to comment, the COA pointed out that the question raised had become academic, given the Court's issuance of its En Banc Resolution A.M. 05-3-35-SC dated January 31, 2006 that directed the remittance of the disputed earnings to the national treasury.[4]
While the Court appreciates petitioners' sense of duty in defending the powers of the judiciary, it must dismiss the petition for being moot. Indeed, the Court Administrator has already complied with what the Court directed by issuing guidelines for its implementation.[5] These should be complied with.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition on the ground that the issue it raised has become moot."
Corona, Velasco, Jr., and Peralta, J.J., on official leave,
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. V1LLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. V1LLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Third whereas clause.
[2] Emphasis supplied.
[3] Rollo,pp. 5-13.
[4] Id. at 30-40.
[4] OCA Circular No. 23-2009 dated March 3, 2009
