FACTS:

The petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA) on January 26, 1980. After the EDSA Revolution, the petitioner submitted his courtesy resignation and applied for retirement effective immediately. He obtained a clearance covering the period from 1976 to December 31, 1985. However, he sought a second clearance to cover the period from January 1, 1986, to March 9, 1986, which was not acted upon by the new Chairman of the COA at the time. The respondent Chairman was later appointed and created a committee to inventory all equipment acquired during the tenure of the petitioner and his predecessor. The committee recommended petitioner's clearance from property accountability, but the respondent Chairman issued a memorandum questioning the committee's recommendations. A special audit team was also created to conduct an audit of the COA transactions during the petitioner's tenure. The team submitted a report mentioning several officials, including the petitioner, who may be responsible or accountable for questioned transactions. Respondent Chairman rendered a decision finding the members of the first inventory committee guilty and issued a reprimand. The respondent Chairman then approved the petitioner's retirement application but withheld one-half of his retirement benefits pending the final results of the audit concerning his fiscal responsibility and/or accountability as former Chairman of the COA. The petitioner requested full payment of his retirement benefits and was furnished a copy of the audit report almost a year later. He submitted a letter-comment raising concerns about the audit and requested a copy of the working papers. However, his request was denied, and he was given a non-extendible period to submit his comment. Instead of submitting his comment, the petitioner sought clarifications and specifications and requested an extension of 90 days to prepare his comment.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the withholding of one-half of petitioner's retirement benefits is valid.

2. Whether the special audit conducted on petitioner's tenure as Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA) is authorized by law.

RULING:

1. The withholding of one-half of petitioner's retirement benefits is valid. The Chairman of the COA issued a decision finding the principal members of the inventory committee guilty of offenses related to the inventory report. Based on this finding, the Chairman informed petitioner that only one-half of the money value of his retirement benefits will be paid, subject to the final audit results regarding his fiscal responsibility and/or accountability as former Chairman. This is in conformity with the usual accounting and auditing rules.

2. The special audit conducted on petitioner's tenure as Chairman of the COA is authorized by law. The Chairman of the COA created a special audit team for the purpose of conducting a financial and compliance audit of COA transactions and accounts during petitioner's tenure. The audit team submitted a report which disclosed deficiencies in the financial condition and operation of the COA. While the report did not make any specific recommendation, it mentioned several officials and employees, including petitioner, who may be responsible or accountable for the questioned transactions. This authorized the Chairman to conduct further audits and investigations to determine the fiscal responsibility and accountability of the individuals involved.

PRINCIPLES:

• The withholding of retirement benefits may be valid if there are findings of offenses or deficiencies related to the individual's fiscal responsibility and accountability.

• The Chairman of the COA has the authority to conduct special audits and investigations to determine the fiscal responsibility and accountability of individuals involved in questioned transactions.