FACTS:

The case involves a petition seeking to nullify Commission on Audit (COA) Resolution No. 2008-005, which imposed the collection of filing fees for certain appeals, money claims, and requests for condonation. The petitioners, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and its personnel, received Notices of Disallowances (NDs) from the COA Resident Auditor for various disallowances, totaling over P40 million. The DFA appealed the disallowances, but the Resident Auditor returned the appeals for failure to pay the filing fees prescribed by the Resolution. The DFA filed a motion to suspend the implementation of the Resolution, which was denied by the COA in Decision No. 2009-089. The DFA then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the COA in Decision No. 2010-090. The sole issue in this case is whether the Resolution is unconstitutional for violating the guarantee of due process, being excessive and oppressive, and issued with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Commission on Audit (COA) en banc has the authority to impose and collect filing fees on certain cases filed before it or in any of its offices.

2. Whether or not the Resolution issued by the COA en banc regarding the imposition and collection of filing fees is valid despite not being promulgated by the en banc consisting of the Chairman and two Commissioners.

3. Whether a majority of the court is sufficient to constitute an en banc sitting.

4. Whether the mandatory payment of filing fees violates the right to due process.

5. Whether the payment of docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement for the perfection of an appeal.

6. Whether the auditee was given due process before the disallowance of the subject transactions.

7. Whether the government official against whom numerous notices of disallowances were issued has to pay for each and every notice of disallowance.

8. Whether the provision in the assailed Resolution requiring the payment of a filing fee by the appellant/petitioner/claimant/complainant violates the right to due process and access to courts.

9. Whether multiple Notice of Disallowance (ND) issued against many employees of one government agency can be paid by the agency in a lump sum.

RULING:

1. Yes, the COA en banc has the authority to impose and collect filing fees on certain cases filed before it or in any of its offices. The power of the COA en banc to promulgate the Resolution is sanctioned by the 1987 Constitution, which grants each Constitutional Commission en banc to promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. However, such rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.

2. Yes, the Resolution issued by the COA en banc regarding the imposition and collection of filing fees is valid despite not being promulgated by the en banc consisting of the Chairman and two Commissioners. The requirement that a matter must be acted upon by the en banc of a body or tribunal has been interpreted to mean that it reaches a decision as a collegial body, and not necessarily, as an entire body. The essence of collegiality in the Commission is not lost even if only two members thereof have resolved to promulgate procedural rules. It is not necessary that the entire complement of the Commission be present or sitting on the bench in order to constitute a Commission sitting en banc.

3. A majority of the court is sufficient to constitute an en banc sitting. It is not necessary for the entire complement of the court to be present or sitting on the bench. As long as there is a majority of the court present, decisions can be made by majority vote.

4. The mandatory payment of filing fees does not violate the right to due process. Filing fees are recognized as essential in our jurisdiction and have been considered an allowable limitation to the right to appeal. Petitioners were already given an opportunity to be heard before their appeals were returned for non-payment of docket fees.

5. Yes, the payment of docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement for the perfection of an appeal. Without the full payment of docket fees within the prescribed period, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.

6. Yes, the auditee was given due process before the disallowance of the subject transactions. The auditee was given the opportunity to present their side and provide justification or comments on the observations and recommendations made by the Resident Auditor. Therefore, there was no denial of due process.

7. Yes, a government official against whom numerous notices of disallowances were issued may be required to pay for each and every notice of disallowance. The consolidation of appeals for these disallowances in one single appeal is allowed, subject to the observance of the reglementary periods for each notice of disallowance. The filing fees are assessed on the basis of the aggregate amount of the disallowed transactions subject to the appeal.

8. The Court held that the provision in the assailed Resolution requiring the payment of a filing fee does not violate a person's right to due process and access to courts. The Constitution does not provide that judicial access must be free at all times, and the payment of judicial costs or filing fees is not an absolute anathema. The Rules of Court provide safeguards for indigent litigants, which can apply suppletorily in proceedings before the Commission on Audit (COA).

9. The Court ruled in the affirmative that multiple Notice of Disallowance (ND) issued against many employees of one government agency can be paid by the agency in a lump sum, subject to the ceiling provided in the assailed Resolution.

PRINCIPLES:

• The COA en banc has the authority to impose and collect filing fees on certain cases filed before it or in any of its offices, as granted by the 1987 Constitution.

• The requirement that a matter must be acted upon by the en banc of a body or tribunal means that it reaches a decision as a collegial body, not necessarily as an entire body.

• The essence of collegiality in the Commission is not lost even if only two members resolve to promulgate procedural rules. It is not necessary for the entire complement of the Commission to be present or sitting on the bench to constitute a Commission sitting en banc.

• The composition of the court en banc does not require the presence of the entire complement of the court, but only a majority.

• Filing fees, when required, are assessed and become due for each initiatory pleading filed and are considered essential in our jurisdiction.

• The payment of filing fees is an allowable limitation to the right to appeal and does not violate the right to due process.

• The promulgation of rules, including rules on filing fees, by the constitutional commissions is within their rule-making power granted by the Constitution.

• The payment of docket fees is a jurisdictional requirement for the perfection of an appeal.

• Procedural due process in administrative proceedings requires that the party be given the opportunity or right to be heard.

• The right to appeal is not a constitutional, natural, or inherent right, but a statutory privilege subject to limitations or qualifications provided by law.

• Filing fees are paid to defray the expenses of the judiciary or quasi-judicial bodies, and not to enrich them.

• The burden of proving the validity or legality of the grant of allowances or benefits lies with the government agency or entity granting the same.

• The Constitution does not mandate that judicial access must be free at all times, and payment of judicial costs or legal fees is not an absolute anathema.

• Provisions in the Rules of Court can apply suppletorily in proceedings before the COA to address a litigant's indigency.