D.

Standing to Challenge
161065 - DOMINGO VS CARAGUE
Sandoval- Gutierrez

Petitioners assail a COA resolution which none of the are directly interested. Their invocation of taxpayer suit also did not
prosper as they did not allege misapplication of public funds.
(digesters note: short case)

DOCTRINE
No legal standing:
Petitioners have not shown any direct and personal interest in the assailed resolution.
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.
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
1. Petitioners: (Pets)
a. Domingo et al retired Chairmen and Commissioners of COA
b. Incumbent officers or employees of COA - Cordillera Administrative Region
2. Respondents: (Resps)
a. Carague- in his capacity as Chairman- COA
b. Dalaman and Flores- in their capacity as Commissioners COA
FACTS
1. This a Rule 65 petition before the SC assailing the legality of Reso No 2002-05 of the COA providing for the
Organizational Restructuring Plan (ORP), on the ff grounds:
a. want of enabling law authorizing COA to undertake the same
b. in doing so it COA GAODLEJ
2. Petitioners claim on standing:
a. Domingo et al- are retired Chairmen and Commissioners of COA, that they maintain a deep-seated
abiding interest in the affairs of COA, especially in the ORP as taxpayers
b. Incumbent officers- that they were unceremoniously divested of their ranks without just cause and due
process in violation of Civil Service Law, they were Unit Head, Team Supervisor and Team Leader before
ORP and that they were deprived of their Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA)
3. Arguments:
a. Pets:
i. invoke the Chavez vs PEA, Agan Jr. vs Piatco, Infotech vs Comelec rulings where the SC ruled
that the subject matter of case is a matter of public concern and imbued with public interest and
that this was enough to give them standing
ii. that ORP is not a mere reorganization but an overhaul with a spill-over effect to its audit
performance- transendental importance
b. Resps- represented by the OSG:
i. invoke KMU vs Garcia- that the pets have not shown a personal stake in the outcome of the
case or an actual or potential injury that cane be redressed by a favorable decision of the Court
ii. Pets themselves admitted that they were not seeking affirmative relief from COA that would
redound to their personal benefit
iii. Pets failed to show present substantial interest
iv. they cannot sue as taxpayers as the petition make no allegation of illegal disbursement or
misapplication of public funds
4.

ISSUE with HOLDING

The issue is the legality of the ORP, however the SC in this decision disposed only of the issue on locus standi. Deciding
that petitioners did not have standing the SC no longer went into the merits.
1. Whether or not pets have standing- NO legal standing
a. SC ruled that Pets reliance on the said cases are wrong:
i. In Chavez(the JVA case), the petitioner had legal standing since he is a taxpayer and the purpose
of the petition was to compel PEA to observe the right of citizens to information of public concern
and equitable distribution of alienable lands among Filipino citizens. This case was of
transcendental public importance.
ii. In Agan Jr.(public bidding), there was financial prejudice - locus standi
 iii.
In Infotech vs Comelec(automated elections bidding)- political and economic future of the
country- publc concern, public interest, taxpayers- public funds
iv. Here, Pets have not show any direct and personal interest in the Organization Restructuring Plan.
1. there is no indication that they have sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining
some direct injury as a result of its implementation
2. they admitted that they do not seek affirmative relief nor impute any improvident act
against Resps
b. On Pets(incumbent Coa officers), they claim that they were demoted and unceremoniously divested of
previous designations as Unit Head, Team Supervisor, or Team Leader and their RATA
i. SC ruled that they were not demoted, under the Admin Code demotion is the movement from one
position to another involving the issuance of an appointment in duties, responsibilities, status or
rank which may or my not involve reduction in salary. No new appointments were made here.
ii. Also, the change from their status from receiving RATA was not brought about by the ORP but to
the implementation of another resolution- Audit Team Approach (ATAP), basically in ATAP a group
of three auditors compose said team, sometimes you're the leader sometimes you're just a
member.
iii. Pets here are not qualified to be Audit Team Leaders and to receive RATA because none of them
holds the rank of State Auditor IV.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION

OTHER NOTES

Digester: nikkim