Funa vs MECO's Partial Case Digest (Discussion of the Main Issue)
2
In the case of Funa vs MECO, the Supreme Court held that MECO is not a GOCC nor a government instrumentality because it is not owned by the Pgovernment! It is a sui generisprivate entity- a non"governmental non"stoc# corporation! $lthough it is entrusted with a gov ernmental function to facili tate the cou ntr y%s uno &ci al re lat ions in ' aiwan, it is not ent ir ely a government instrumentality! 'hus, not all accounts of MECO are sub(ect to the auditing power of Co$! avi ng said that, MECO should be sub( ected to the audi ti ng of CO$ as regar ds it s coll ecti on of veri )c ati on and consul ar fees! P er ti nent is the pro vision of the $dminis trati ve Code, Section *+*-, .oo# / thereof, which authori0es the CO$ to audit a ccounts of non1governmental entities 2required to pay xxx or have government share 3 but only with respect to 2 funds xxxcoming from or through the government!3 'he said fees collected by MECO are receivables of 4O5E! $s to the veri)cation fees6 7nder Section 8 of EO 9o! *:;;, 4O5E has the authority to collect veri)cation fees! .ut it entered into a series of Mo$ with MECO authori0ing the latter to collect such fees since the Pdoes not have an o&cial post in 'aiwan! $s to the consular fees6 'he authority behind 2 consular fees3 is Section ;<- of EO 9o! *=, s! ;::*! 'he said section authori0es the MECO to collect 2reasonable fees3 for its performance of consular functions! Evidently, and (ust li#e the peculiarity that attends the 4O5E 2 verication fees,3 there is no consular o&ce for the collection of the 2 consular fees!3 'hus, the authority for the MECO to collect the 2 reasonable fees,3 vested unto it by the e>ecutive order EO 9o! *=, s! ;::*- CONCLUSION The MECO is not a GOCC or government instrumentali ty . It is a suigeneri s private entity especially entruste!y the government "ith the #ac ilitation o# uno$ci al relati ons "ith the people in T ai"an wi thout (e opar di 0i ng the countr y% s fait hf ul commit ment to the One Chinapolicy of the P?OC! owever, despite its non1governmental character, the MECO handles government funds in the form of the 2 verication fees3 it collects on behalf of the 4O5E and the 2consular fees3 it collects under Se ct ion ;<- of EO 9o ! *= , s! ;: :*! %enc e& uner e'isti ng la"s & the accounts o# the MECO pertaining to its collection o# such (veri fcat ion ees) an(cons ular ees) shoul!e auite!y the CO*.
Funa vs MECO's Partial Case Digest (Discussion of the Main Issue)
Funa vs MECO's Partial Case Digest (Discussion of the Main Issue)
Citation preview
In the case of Funa vs MECO, the Supreme Court held that MECO is
not a GOCC nor a government instrumentality because it is not owned
by the PH government. It is a sui generis private entity - a
non-governmental non-stock corporation. Although it is entrusted
with a governmental function to facilitate the countrys unofficial
relations in Taiwan, it is not entirely a government
instrumentality. Thus, not all accounts of MECO are subject to the
auditing power of CoA.Having said that, MECO should be subjected to
the auditing of COA as regards its collection of verification and
consular fees. Pertinent is the provision of the Administrative
Code, Section 14(1), Book V thereof, which authorizes the COA to
audit accounts of nongovernmental entities required to pay xxx or
have government share but only with respect to funds xxx coming
from or through the government. The said fees collected by MECO are
receivables of DOLE.As to the verification fees: Under Section 7 of
EO No. 1022, DOLE has the authority to collect verification fees.
But it entered into a series of MoA with MECO authorizing the
latter to collect such fees since the PH does not have an official
post in Taiwan. As to the consular fees: The authority behind
consular fees is Section 2(6) of EO No. 15, s. 2001. The said
section authorizes the MECO to collect reasonable fees for its
performance of consular functions. Evidently, and just like the
peculiarity that attends the DOLE verification fees, there is no
consular office for the collection of the consular fees. Thus, the
authority for the MECO to collect the reasonable fees, vested unto
it by the executive order (EO No. 15, s. 2001)ConclusionThe MECO is
not a GOCC or government instrumentality. It is asui generisprivate
entity especially entrusted by the government with the facilitation
of unofficial relations with the people in Taiwan without
jeopardizing the countrys faithful commitment to theOne Chinapolicy
of the PROC. However, despite its nongovernmental character, the
MECO handles government funds in the form of the verification fees
it collects on behalf of the DOLE and the consular fees it collects
under Section 2(6) of EO No. 15, s. 2001. Hence, under existing
laws, the accounts of the MECO pertaining to its collection of such
verification fees and consular fees should be audited by the
COA.
![Legal Ethics [Funa Book]-Atty. Funa [Haulo, Ampong, Rico)](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/577cb1881a28aba7118bb86a/legal-ethics-funa-book-atty-funa-haulo-ampong-rico.jpg)
