Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANC G.R. No. 108310 September 1, 1994RUFINO O. ESLAO, ! "# $%p%$t& %# Pre#'e!t o( P%!)%#!%! St%te U!*er#t&, petitioner, vs.COMMISSION ON AU+IT, respondent.Mehol K. Sadain for petitioner. FELICIANO, J.:In this Petition for Certiorari, Rufino O.Eslao in his capacityas Presidentofthe Panasinan!tate "niversity #$P!"$% as&s us to set aside Co''ission on Audit #$COA$% (ecisions Nos. )*+,#)--.% and /*,) #)--/% 0hich denied honoraria and per diems clai'ed under NationalCo'pensation Circular No. *1 by certain P!" personnel includin petitioner.On-(ece'ber )-22, P!"enteredintoaMe'orandu'of Aree'ent #$MOA$% 1 0iththe(epart'ent of Environ'ent and Natural Resources #$(ENR$% for the evaluation of eleven #))%overn'ent reforestationoperationsinPanasinan. , 3heevaluationpro4ect 0aspart of theco''it'ent of theAsian(evelop'ent Ban$A(B$% under theA(B5OEC66orestry!ectorProra'7oan to the Republic of the Philippines and 0as one a'on identical pro4ectaree'ents entered into by the (ENR 0ith si8teen #)9% other state universities.On - (ece'ber )-22, a notice to proceed 3 0ith the revie0 and evaluation of the eleven #))%reforestation operations 0as issued by the (ENR to P!". 3he latter co'plied 0ith this noticeand did proceed.On)9:anuary)-2-, peradviceof theP!" Auditor;in;Chare0ithrespect tothepay'entof honoraria and per diems of P!"personnel enaedintherevie0andevaluationpro4ect,P!"s leal e8penses and attorney>s fees.3heresolutionof thedisputeliesinthedeter'inationof thecircular or set of provisionsapplicable in respect of the honoraria to bepaid to P!"personnel 0ho too& part intheevaluation pro4ect, i.e., NCC No. 53 or CPG No. 80-4.Inassertinthat NCCNo. *1suppliestheapplicableuidelineandthat theCOAerredinapplyin CP? No. 2.;+ as the pertinent standard, petitioner contends thatD#a% CP? No. 2.;+ applies to $special pro4ects$ the definition and scope of 0hich do note'brace the evaluation pro4ect underta&en by petitioner for the (ENRC(b) NCC No. 53 applies to foreign-assisted projects ("FAPs") while CP No.!"-#applies tolocall$-f%ndedprojects as noreferencetoan$ foreignco&ponent characteri'ing the projects %nder its co(erage is &ade)(c) the *+N, e(al%ation project is a foreign-assisted project per certi-cationand clari-cation of the *+N, and *./ respecti(el$ as well as the i&pliedad&ission of the C0A in its Co&&ent) and(d) the *./1s position on the &atter sho%ld be respected since the *./ is(estedwitha%thorit$to(i) classif$positionsanddeter&ineappropriatesalaries for speci-c position classes2 (ii) re(iew the co&pensation bene-tsprogra&s of agencies and (iii) design job e(al%ation progra&s.3he04ceof the5olicitoreneral2 inlie%of aCo&&entonthePetition2 -leda/anifestation 17 stating that (a) since2 per certi-cation of the *+N, and6etter70pinion of the *./ that the project %nderta8en b$ P59 is foreign-assisted2NCC No. 53 sho%ld appl$) and (b) respondent C0A1s contention that CP No. !"-#does not disting%ish between projects which are foreign-f%nded fro& locall$-f%ndedprojects deser(es no &erit2 since NCC No. 532 a special g%ideline2 &%st be constr%edas an e:ception to CP No. !"-#2 a general g%ideline. 3he 5olicitor eneral2 in otherwords2 agreed with the position of petitioner.9pon the other hand2 respondent C0A -led its own co&&ent2 asserting that;(a) while the *./ is (ested with the a%thorit$ to iss%e r%les andreg%lations pertaining to co&pensation2 this a%thorit$ is reg%latedb$5ec.