You are on page 1of 2

DOMINGO v CARAGUE

April 15, 2005 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. | Special Civil Action in the SC | Standing to Challenge
PETITIONER: Eufemio Domingo, Celso Gangan, Pacasio Banaria, Sofronio Ursal, Alberto cruz, Maria
Matib, Rachel Pacpaco, Angelo Sanchez, Sherwin Sip-an
RESPONDENT: Hon. Guillermo Carague, in his capacity as Chairman of Commission on Audit, Hon.
Emmanuel Dalman and Hon. Raul Flores, in their capacities as Commissioners of Commission on Audit
SUMMARY: Petitioners consisted of retired and incumbent officers and members of Commission on Audit.
They question the legality of the Organizational Restructuring Plan as it unceremoniously divested certain
employees of their positions and caused them financial prejudice. They claim to have standing as taxpayers and
because the subject matter is of transcendental importance. SC ruled that petitioners have no standing as they
failed to show any present substantial interest in the outcome of the case.
DOCTRINE: He who is directly affected and whose interest is immediate and substantial has the standing to
sue. Thus, a party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be
redressed by a favorable decision in order to warrant an invocation of the courts jurisdiction.

FACTS:
Petitioners are retired Chairmen and retired
Commissioners and incumbent officers or employees
of Commission on Audit. They question the legality
of Resolution No. 2002-05 of the COA providing for
Organizational Restructuring Plan. They allege that it
is void as it does not have an enabling law
authorizing COA to undertake the same.
Some of the petitioners claim that they were
unceremoniously divested of their designations/ranks
as Unit Head, Team Supervisor, and Team Leader
upon implementation of the COA Organizational
Restructuring Plan without just cause and without
due process, in violation of Civil Service Law. Also,
they were deprived of their respective Representation
and Transportation Allowance (RATA) causing them
financial prejudice.

They all claim to maintain a deep-seated abiding


interest in the affairs of COA especially in its
Organizational Restructuring Plan, as concerned
taxpayers. They want the Court to strike down the
COA Organizational Restructuring Plan for being
unconstitutional. They assert that the subject matter is
of transcendental importance as the plan is not just a
mere reorganization but an overhaul of the COA.

ISSUE/S:

1.

WON petitioners have the legal standing to


institute the petition NO

RULING: Petition dismissed

RATIO:
Petitioners failed to show any present substantial
interest in the outcome of the case. Nor may
petitioners claim that as taxpayers, they have legal
standing since nowhere in their petition do they claim
that public fundsarebeingspentinviolationoflaw
orthatthereisamisapplicationofthetaxpayers
money.

Petitioners have not shown any direct and personal


interest
in
the
COA Organizational
Restructuring Plan. There is no indication that they
have sustained or are in imminent danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of its
implementation. In fact, they admitted that they do
not seek any affirmative relief nor impute any
improper or improvident act against the respondents
and are not motivated by any desire to seek
affirmative relief from COA or from respondents that
would redound to their personal benefit or gain.

Withregardtosomepetitionersclaimthattheywere
unceremoniouslydivestedoftheirprevious
designationsandweredeniedtransportation
allowance,therewasnodemotionasdefinedunder
Section 11, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of
1987. A demotion is the movement from one position
to another involving the issuance of an appointment
with diminution in duties, responsibilities, status, or
rank which may or may not involve reduction in
salary.

In this case there were no new appointments issued to


them under the COA Organizational Restructuring

Plan and change in their status from COA auditors


(receiving monthly RATA) to COA auditors
(receiving only reimbursable RATA) cannot be
attributed to the COA Organizational
Restructuring Plan but
to
the
implementation of the Audit Team Approach (ATAP).
Under the Memorandum No. 2002-34, the petitioners
are not qualified to be Audit Team Leaders or to
receive fixed monthly RATA since none of them
holds the rank of State Auditor IV. Petitioners did not
sustain personal injury and did not show personal
stake.