Blue Bar Coconut Philippines v.
Tantuico
G.R. No. L-47051
July 29, 1988
Facts:
Sometime in 1976, the respondent Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit
initiated a special audit of coconut end-user companies, which include herein
petitioners, with respect to their Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund levy collections
and the subsidies they had received.
As a result of the initial findings of the Performance Audit Office with respect only
to the petitioners, respondent Acting COA Chairman directed the Chairman, the
Administrator, and the Military Supervisor of PCA and the Manager of the Coconut
Consumers Stabilization Fund, in various letters to them (Annexes G-2 H, I, J, L and N
of petition) to collect the short levies and overpaid subsidies, and to apply subsidy
claims to the settlement of short levies should the petitioners fail to remit the amount
due.
Issues:
Whether or not the respondent COA Chairman may disregard the PCA rules and
decisions has become moot.
Ruling:
In the case at bar, the petitioners have failed to show that acts were done with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Case dismissed.
Petitioners contend that they are outside the ambit of respondents' "audit" power
which is confined to government-owned or controlled corporations.
Section 2 (1) of Article IX-D of the Constitution provides that "The Commission on
Audit shall have the power, authority and duty to examine, audit, and settle 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
corporation with original charters, and on a post-audit basis. ... (d) such non-
governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity directly or indirectly from or through
the Government which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such
audit as a condition of subsidy or equity." The Constitution formally embodies the long
established rule that private entities who handle government funds or subsidies in trust
may be examined or audited in their handling of said funds by government auditors. In
view of the above considerations, we apply the principle of primary jurisdiction:
In cases involving specialized disputes, the trend has been to refer the
same to an administrative agency of special competence. As early as 1954, the
Court in Pambujan Sur United Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc. (94 Phil.
932,941), held that under the sense-making and expeditious doctrine of primary
jurisdiction ... the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a
question which is within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal prior to the
decision of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question
demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to
comply with the Purposes of the regulatory statute administered." Recently, this
Court specaking thru Mr. Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee said that "In this era
of clogged court dockets, the need for specialized administrative boards or
commissions with the special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and
determine promptly disputes on technical matters or essentially factual matters,
subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, has become well-
nigh indispensable." The court reminds us that the legal presumption is that
official duty has been duly performed.