5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly commendations and citations.[32] Lastly, petitioner asserts that under the doctrine of quantum meruit, he is entitled to his money claims.[33] In the Comment[34] filed by respondents COA and DFA, through the OSG, they maintain that petitioner did not discharge the function of a Consul General from January 1, 2005 in a hold-over capacity since respondent DFA designated Consul Betita as Acting Head of Post of Honolulu effective January 1, 2005; and that petitioner is not entitled to any salary, allowance and other compensation as Consul General for the said period considering that the requisite approval of the President for the extension of his service of his service was neither given nor issued.[35] The main issue to be resolved is whether petitioner is entitled to the payment of his money claims. Ruling of the Court The petition is partially granted. Prefatorily, we note that the Constitution vests the broadest latitude in the COA in discharging its role as the guardian of public funds and properties by granting it "exclusive authority, subject to the limitations in this Article, to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required therefor, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations, including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.[36] In recognition of such constitutional empowerment of the COA, the Court has generally sustained COA's decisions or resolutions in deference to its expertise in the implementation of the laws it has been entrusted to enforce. Only when the COA has clearly acted without or in excess of jurisdiction has the Court intervened to correct the COA's decisions or resolutions. For this purpose, grave abuse of discretion means that there is on the part of the COA an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law, such as when the assailed decision or resolution rendered is not based on law and the evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.[37] In this case, we find that the COA overlooked certain facts and evidence which can affect the outcome of petitioner's money claim. Petitioner claims payment of his salary and other compensation and overseas allowance and living quarters for the period from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005, when his services as Consul of the PCG of Honolulu was extended beyond his compulsory retirement. Petitioner being a Presidential appointee, the pertinent law, E.O. No. 136, s. 1999 or the law Requiring Presidential Approval of Requests for Extension of Services of Presidential Appointees Beyond the Compulsory Retirement Age, is applicable. To quote: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66329 5/10