AMANDO M. TETANGCO, JR., PETER B. FAVILA, JUANITA D.

AMATONG,
NELLY A. FAVIS VILLAFUERTE, ALFREDO C. ANTONIO, IGNACIO R.
BUNYE, MARIE MICHELLE N. ONG, BELLA M. PRUDENCIO, ESMEGARDO
S. REYES, MA. CORAZON G. CATARROJA vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
(COA)
G.R. No. 215061, June 6, 2017

DOCTRINE: The degree of diligence required from bank employees and officials
is not ordinary but requires the highest standards of integrity and performance.

FACTS:

Petitioner Amando M. Tetangco, Jr., (Tetangco, Jr.) is the Governor of the

Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). Petitioners Peter B. Favila (Favila), Juanita D.
Amatong (Amatong), Nelly A. Favis-Villafuerte (Favis-Villafuerte), Alfredo C.
Antonio (Antonio) and Ignacio R. Bunye (Bunye) were the MBM at the time that
the allowance for EMEs was approved. Petitioners Marie Michelle N. Ong (Ong),
Bella M. Prudencio (Prudencio), Esmegardo S. Reyes (Reyes) and Ma. Corazon G.
Catarroja (Catarroja) were employees of the BSP who participated in the
processing and approval of the EME.

This case stemmed from Commission on Audit (COA) act of disallowing the
Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs) of the ex officio members of
the Monetary Board (MBM), allegedly in violation of their respective
constitutional rights.

COA Decision on the Performance Audit Report on the allocation and

utilization of Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs) of the ex officio
members of the Monetary Board (MBM), stated, among others, that the ex-officio
member of the MB shall not be entitled to additional Extraordinary and
Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs), other than that appropriated for him or her
under the General Appropriations Act (GAA) as a cabinet member. Pursuant to
this Decision, COA conducted an actual audit of the specific accounts that
allegedly exceeded the prescribed limitations and/or were not properly
documented/justified. As a consequence, the Extraordinary and Miscellaneous
Expenses (EMEs) of the ex officio members of the Monetary Board (MBM) Neri
and Favila were disallowed and became the subject of Notice of Disallowances.
Eventually, the MBM and BSP personnel, which include the petitioners, were
held personally liable.

ISSUE: Are the ex officio members of the Monetary Board entitled to

Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs)?

RULING:
 No. The Petitioners, in approving the irregular allowance, were remiss in
their duty to protect the interest of the Bank. They ought to know that the ex
officio members of the Monetary Board were already receiving the same
allowance from their respective Departments, hence, they were no longer entitled
to the additional Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs). It must be
emphasized that the degree of diligence required from bank employees and
officials is not ordinary but requires the highest standards of integrity and
performance. Section 2 of R.A. No. 8791, also known as the General Banking
Law of 2000, provides for the degree of diligence expected from the industry, to
wit:

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State recognizes the vital role of

banks providing an environment conducive to the sustained development
of the national economy and the fiduciary nature of banking that requires
high standards of integrity and performance. xxx

Banks handle daily transactions involving millions of pesos. By the very

nature of their work the degree of responsibility, care and trustworthiness
expected of their employees and officials is far greater than those of ordinary
clerks and employees. For obvious reasons, the banks are expected to exercise
the highest degree of diligence in the selection and supervision of their
employees.

The patent disregard of several case laws and COA directives, as in this
case amounts to gross negligence; hence, petitioners cannot be presumed in
good faith. The petitioners approving officers of the Monetary Board are liable for
the excess Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs) which they
received.

As the records bear out, the petitioners who approve the Extraordinary
and Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs) failed to observe the following: first, there
is already a law, the General Appropriations Act (GAA), that limits the grant of
Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs); second, COA Memorandum
No. 97-038 dated September 19, 1997 is a directive issued by the COA to its
auditors to enforce the self-executing prohibition imposed by Section 13, Article
VII of the Constitution on the President and his official family, their deputies and
assistants, or their representatives from holding multiple offices and receiving
double. compensation; and third, the irregularity of giving additional
compensation or allowances to ex officio members was already settled by
jurisprudence, during the time that the subject allowances were authorized by
the BSP.

Indeed, the petitioners-approving officers' disregard of the aforementioned

case laws, COA issuances, and the Constitution, cannot be deemed as a mere
lapse consistent with the presumption of good faith.
 In line with this, we cannot subscribe to petitioner Favila's insistence that
he should not be liable in the approving, processing and receiving of
Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs) on the basis that he did not
participate in the adoption of the resolutions authorizing the payment of the
Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EMEs).

Verily, petitioners Tetangco, Jr., Favila, Amatong, Favis-Villafuerte,

Antonio, and Bunye, who were members of the Monetary Board were expected
to keep abreast of the laws that may affect the performance of their functions.