EN BANC
G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015
MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Section 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. - All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.
Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary of said official or employee and shall be paid by the National Government.
(1) Per diems and commutable allowance received by the members of the Board of Maritime Industry Authority;11
(2) Rice subsidy allowance;12 and
(3) Medical allowance.13
(1) Reimbursable representation allowance for members of the Board of Maritime Industry Authority;15
(2) Performance incentives allowance;16
(3) Economic/efficiency/financial assistance/benefit;17
(4) Hearing allowance;18 and
(5) Birthday month/off month/employment date anniversary allowances.19
Notice of Disallowance No. | Date | Amount Disallowed | Allowance/Benefit Disallowed |
2002-002-101(01) 26 | April 9, 2002 | P586,500.00 | Rice and Medical Allowance Allowances of Board Members and Secretary |
2002-005-101(01) 27 | April 9, 2002 | P30,800.00 | Rice and Medical Allowance Representation Allowance of Board Members and Secretary |
2002-006-101(01)28 | August 7, 2002 | P1,635,376.08 | Rice and Medical Allowance Performance Incentive Allowance for February Birthday and Employment Anniversary Bonus Representation Allowance of Board Members and Secretary |
2002-007-101(01)29 | August 8, 2002 | P1,694,008.14 | Rice and Medical Allowance Performance Incentive Allowance Birthday and Employment Anniversary Bonus |
2002-008-101(01)30 | August 8, 2002 | P1,618,760.80 | Rice and Medical Allowance Performance Incentive Allowance Birthday and Employment Anniversary Bonus Anniversary Allowance |
A Rule 65 petition is a unique and special rule because it commands limited review of the question raised. As an extraordinary remedy, its purpose is simply to keep the public respondent within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to relieve the petitioner from the public respondent’s arbitrary acts. In this review, the Court is confined solely to questions of jurisdiction whenever a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial function acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. . . .
The limitation of the Court’s power of review over COA rulings merely complements its nature as an independent constitutional body that is tasked to safeguard the proper use of the government and, ultimately, the people’s property by vesting it with power to (i) determine whether the government entities comply with the law and the rules in disbursing public funds; and (ii) disallow legal disbursements of these funds.48 (Emphasis in the original)
[t]his court has consistently held that findings of administrative agencies are generally respected, unless found to have been tainted with unfairness that amounted to grave abuse of discretion:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIt is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws that they are entrusted to enforce. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. It is only when the COA has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, that this Court entertains a petition questioning its rulings. There is grave abuse of discretion when there is an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act in contemplation of law as when the judgment rendered is not based on law and evidence but on caprice, whim and despotism.49
Section 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. - All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.
Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary of said official or employee and shall be paid by the National Government. (Emphasis supplied)
However, because of its lack of publication in either the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, DBM-CCC No. 10 was declared ineffective on August 12, 1998, in De Jesus v. COA, which we quote:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn the present case under scrutiny, it is decisively clear that D[B]M-CCC No. 10, which completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional compensation to government officials and employees, starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. It is something more than that. And why not, when it tends to deprive government workers of their allowances and additional compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul together. At the very least, before the said circular under attack may be permitted to substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees concerned should be apprised and alerted by the publication of the subject circular in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines – to the end that they be given amplest opportunity to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate their stance on the subject matter. This approach is more in keeping with democratic precepts and rudiments of fairness and transparency.cralawredIn other words, during the period that DBM-CCC No. 10 was in legal limbo, the COLA and the amelioration allowance were not effectively integrated into the standardized salaries.
Hence, it would be incorrect to contend that because those allowances were not effectively integrated under the first sentence, then they were “non-integrated benefits” falling under the second sentence of Section 12 of RA 6758. Their characterization must be deemed to have also been in legal limbo, pending the effectivity of DBM-CCC No. 10. Consequently, contrary to the ruling of the COA, the second sentence does not apply to the present case. By the same token, the policy embodied in the provision — the non-diminution of benefits in favour of incumbents as of July 1, 1989 — is also inapplicable.
The parties fail to cite any law barring the continuation of the grant of the COLA and the amelioration allowance during the period when DBM-CCC No. 10 was in legal limbo.54
Section 12 of Rep. Act No. 6758 lays down the general rule that all allowances of state workers are to be included in their standardized salary rates. Exempted from integration to the standardized salary rates, as specified in the aforequoted provision of Section 12 of Rep. Act No. 6758, are only the following allowances:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) representation and transportation allowances (RATA); (2) clothing and laundry allowances; (3) subsistence allowances of marine officers and crew on board government vessels; (4) subsistence allowance of hospital personnel; (5) hazard pay; (6) allowance of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and (7) such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM.
Otherwise stated, the foregoing are the only allowances which government employees can continue to receive in addition to their standardized salary rates. The employee welfare allowance of NPC personnel is clearly not among the allowances listed above which State workers can continue to receive under Rep. Act No. 6758 over and above their standardized salary rates. We must emphasize that Rep. Act No. 6758 does not require that DBM should first define those allowances that are to be integrated with the standardized salary rates of government employees before NPC could integrate the employee welfare allowance into its employees’ salaries. Thus, despite our ruling in De Jesus which thwarted the attempt of DBM in DBM-CCC No. 10 to complete the list of allowances exempted from integration, NPC is allowed under Rep. Act No. 6758 to integrate employee welfare allowance into the employees’ standardized salary rates.61
- representation and transportation allowances;
- clothing and laundry allowances;
- subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels;
- subsistence allowance of hospital personnel;
- hazard pay; and
- allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad.75
R.A. 6758 further reinforced this policy by expressly decreeing that all allowances not specifically mentioned therein, or as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates prescribed.80
Otherwise stated, the foregoing are the only allowances which government employees can continue to receive in addition to their standardized salary rates. The employee welfare allowance of NPC personnel is clearly not among the allowances listed above which State workers can continue to receive under Rep. Act No. 6758 over and above their standardized salary rates. We must emphasize that Rep. Act No. 6758 does not require that DBM should first define those allowances that are to be integrated in the standardized salary rates of government employees before NPC could integrate the employee welfare allowance into its employees' salaries. Thus, despite our ruling in De Jesus which thwarted the attempt of DBM-CCC No. 10 to complete the list of allowances exempted from integration, NPC is allowed under Rep. Act No. 6758 to integrate the employee welfare allowance into the employees' standardized salary rates.82 (Emphasis supplied)
There is no merit in the claim of PITC that R.A. No. 6758, particularly Section 12 thereof is void because DBM-Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, its implementing rules, was nullified in the case of De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, for lack of publication. The basis of COA in disallowing the grant of SFI was Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 and not DBM-CCC No. 10. Moreover, the nullity of DBM-CCC No. 10 will not affect the validity of R.A. No. 6758. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutory provisions control the rules and regulations which may be issued pursuant thereto. Such rules and regulations must be consistent with and must not defeat the purpose of the statute. The validity of R.A. No. 6758 should not be made to depend on the validity of its implementing rules.86
“all allowances” were deemed integrated into the standardized salary rates except the following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(1) representation and transportation allowances;But, while the provision enumerated certain exclusions, it also authorized the DBM to identify such other additional compensation that may be granted over and above the standardized salary rates. In Philippine Ports Authority Employees Hired After July 1, 1989 v. Commission on Audit, the Court has ruled that while Section 12 could be considered self-executing in regard to items (1) to (6), it was not so in regard to item (7). The DBM still needed to amplify item (7) since one cannot simply assume what other allowances were excluded from the standardized salary rates. It was only upon the issuance and effectivity of the corresponding implementing rules and regulations that item (7) could be deemed legally completed.
(2) clothing and laundry allowances;
(3) subsistence allowances of marine officers and crew on board government vessels;
(4) subsistence allowances of hospital personnel;
(5) hazard pay;
(6) allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and
(7) such other additional compensation not otherwise specified in Section 12 as may be determined by the DBM.cralawred
. . . .
In this case, the DBM promulgated NCC 59 [and CCC 10]. But, instead of identifying some of the additional exclusions that Section 12 of R.A. 6758 permits it to make, the DBM made a list of what allowances and benefits are deemed integrated into the standardized salary rates. More specifically, NCC 59 identified the following allowances/additional compensation that are deemed integrated:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
. . . .
The drawing up of the above list is consistent with Section 12 above. R.A. 6758 did not prohibit the DBM from identifying for the purpose of implementation what fell into the class of “all allowances.” With respect to what employees’ benefits fell outside the term apart from those that the law specified, the DBM, said this Court in a case, needed to promulgate rules and regulations identifying those excluded benefits. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that until and unless the DBM issues such rules and regulations, the enumerated exclusions in items (1) to (6) remain exclusive. Thus so, not being an enumerated exclusion, COLA is deemed already incorporated in the standardized salary rates of government employees under the general rule of integration.88
[t]he Court has, to be sure, taken stock of its recent ruling in Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Employees Hired After July 1, 1989 vs. Commission on Audit. Sadly, however, our pronouncement therein is not on all fours applicable owing to the differing factual milieu. There, the Commission on Audit allowed the payment of back cost of living allowance (COLA) and amelioration allowance previously withheld from PPA employees pursuant to the heretofore ineffective DBM – CCC No. 10, but limited the back payment only to incumbents as of July 1, 1989 who were already then receiving both allowances. COA considered the COLA and amelioration allowance of PPA employees as “not integrated” within the purview of the second sentence of Section 12 of Rep. Act No. 6758, which, according to COA confines the payment of “not integrated” benefits only to July 1, 1989 incumbents already enjoying the allowances.
In setting aside COA’s ruling, we held in PPA Employees that there was no basis to use the elements of incumbency and prior receipt as standards to discriminate against the petitioners therein. For, DBM-CCC No. 10, upon which the incumbency and prior receipt requirements are contextually predicated, was in legal limbo from July 1, 1989 (effective date of the unpublished DBM-CCC No. 10) to March 16, 1999 (date of effectivity of the heretofore unpublished DBM circular). And being in legal limbo, the benefits otherwise covered by the circular, if properly published, were likewise in legal limbo as they cannot be classified either as effectively integrated or not integrated benefits.90
1. the education and excellence required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position;
2. the nature and complexity of the work to be performed;
3. the kind of supervision received;
4. mental and/or physical strain required in the completion of the work;
5. nature and extent of internal and external relationships;
6. kind of supervision exercised;
7. decision-making responsibility;
8. responsibility for accuracy of records and reports;
9. accountability for funds, properties, and equipment; and
10. hardship, hazard, and personal risk involved in the job.92
[T]he benefits excluded from the standardized salary rates are the “allowances” or those which are usually granted to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions.
. . . .
In Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit, we explained that if these allowances were consolidated with the standardized salary rates, then government officials or employees would be compelled to spend their personal funds in attending to their duties.95
Analyzing No. 7, which is the last clause of the first sentence of Section 12, in relation to the other benefits therein enumerated, it can be gleaned unerringly that it is a “catch-all proviso.” Further reflection on the nature of subject fringe benefits indicates that all of them have one thing in common - they belong to one category of privilege called allowances which are usually granted to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions. In Philippine Ports Authority vs. Commission on Audit, this Court rationalized that “if these allowances are consolidated with the standardized rate, then the government official or employee will be compelled to spend his personal funds in attending to his duties.”
The conclusion - that the enumerated fringe benefits are in the nature of allowance - finds support in sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10.
Sub-paragraph 5.4 enumerates the allowance/fringe benefits which are not integrated into the basic salary and which may be continued after June 30, 1989 subject to the condition that the grant of such benefit is covered by statutory authority, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) RATA;
(2) Uniform and Clothing allowances;
(3) Hazard pay;
(4) Honoraria/additional compensation for employees on detail with special projects or inter-agency undertakings;
(5) Honoraria for services rendered by researchers, experts and specialists who are of acknowledged authorities in their fields of specialization;
(6) Honoraria for lectures and resource persons or speakers;
(7) Overtime pay in accordance to Memorandum Order No. 228;
(8) Clothing/laundry allowances and subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board GOCCs/GFIs owned vessels and used in their operations, and of hospital personnel who attend directly to patients and who by nature of their duties are required to wear uniforms;
(9) Quarters Allowance of officials and employees who are presently entitled to the same;
(10) Overseas, Living Quarters and other allowances presently authorized for personnel stationed abroad;
(11) Night differential of personnel on night duty;
(12) Per Diems of members of the governing Boards of GOCCs/GFIs at the rate as prescribed in their respective Charters;
(13) Flying pay of personnel undertaking aerial flights;
(14) Per Diems/Allowances of Chairman and Members or Staff of collegial bodies and Committees; and
(15) Per Diems/Allowances of officials and employees on official foreign and local travel outside of their official station.
In addition, sub-paragraph 5.5 of the same Implementing Rules provides for the other allowances/fringe benefits not likewise integrated into the basic salary and allowed to be continued only for incumbents as of June 30, 1989 subject to the condition that the grant of the same is with appropriate authorization either from the DBM, Office of the President or legislative issuances, as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) Rice Subsidy;
(2) Sugar Subsidy;
(3) Death Benefits other than those granted by the GSIS;
(4) Medical/Dental/Optical Allowances/Benefits;
(5) Children’s Allowances;
(6) Special Duty Pay/Allowance;
(7) Meal Subsidy;
(8) Longevity Pay; and
(9) Teller’s Allowance.
On the other hand, the challenged financial incentive is awarded by the government in order to encourage the beneficiaries to pursue further studies and to help them underwrite the expenses for the education of their children and dependents. In other words, subject benefit is in the nature of financial assistance and not of an allowance. For the former, reimbursement is not necessary while for the latter, reimbursement is required. Not only that, the former is basically an incentive wage which is defined as “a bonus or other payment made to employees in addition to guaranteed hourly wages” while the latter cannot be reckoned with as a bonus or additional income, strictly speaking.
It is indeed decisively clear that the benefits mentioned in the first sentence of Section 12 and sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10 are entirely different from the benefit in dispute, denominated as Educational Assistance. The distinction elucidated upon is material in arriving at the correct interpretation of the two seemingly contradictory provisions of Section 12.
Cardinal is the rule in statutory construction “that the particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole. A statute must so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible.” And the rule - that statute must be construed as a whole - requires that apparently conflicting provisions should be reconciled and harmonized, if at all possible. It is likewise a basic precept in statutory construction that the intent of the legislature is the controlling factor in the interpretation of the subject statute. With these rules and the foregoing distinction elaborated upon, it is evident that the two seemingly irreconcilable propositions are susceptible to perfect harmony. Accordingly, the Court concludes that under the aforesaid “catch-all proviso,” the legislative intent is just to include the fringe benefits which are in the nature of allowances and since the benefit under controversy is not in the same category, it is safe to hold that subject educational assistance is not one of the fringe benefits within the contemplation of the first sentence of Section 12 but rather, of the second sentence of Section 12, in relation to Section 17 of R.A. No. 6758, considering that (1) the recipients were incumbents when R.A. No. 6758 took effect on July 1, 1989, (2) were, in fact, receiving the same, at the time, and (3) such additional compensation is distinct and separate from the specific allowances above-listed, as the former is not integrated into the standardized salary rate. Simply stated, the challenged benefit is covered by the second sentence of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758, the application of sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10 being only confined to the first sentence of Section 12, particularly the last clause thereof which amplifies the “catch-all proviso.”97 (Citations omitted)
In the instant case, the Food Basket Allowance is definitely not in the nature of an allowance to reimburse expenses incurred by officials and employees of the government in the performance of their official functions. It is not payment in consideration of the fulfilment of official duty. It is a form of financial assistance to all officials and employees of BFAR. Petitioner itself stated that the Food Basket Allowance has the purpose of alleviating the economic condition of BFAR employees.99
Congress has two options when enacting legislation to define national policy within the broad horizons of its legislative competence. It can itself formulate the details or it can assign to the executive branch the responsibility for making necessary marginal decisions in conformity with those standards. In the latter case, the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. Thus, what is left for the executive branch or the concerned administrative agency when it formulates rules and regulations implementing the law is to fill up details (supplementary rule-making) or ascertain facts necessary to bring the law into actual operation (contingent rule-making).101 (Citations omitted)
at the apex of the entire executive officialdom is the President. Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution specifies his power as Chief Executive, thus: “The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.” As Chief Executive, President Arroyo holds the steering wheel that controls the course of her government. She lays down policies in the execution of her plans and programs. Whatever policy she chooses, she has her subordinates to implement them. In short, she has the power of control. Whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to her subordinate, she may act directly or merely direct the performance of a duty. Thus, when President Arroyo directed respondent Ebdane to suspend the issuance of PTCFOR, she was just directing a subordinate to perform an assigned duty. Such act is well within the prerogative of her office.104 (Emphasis in the original)
As envisioned in the Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections, and the Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation and pay loans of the government and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions.108
[t]o reiterate, the public purpose requirement for the disbursement of public funds is a valid limitation on the types of allowances and benefits that may be granted to public officers. It was incumbent upon petitioner to show that his allowances and benefits were authorized by law and that there was a direct and substantial relationship between the performance of his public functions and the grant of the disputed allowances to him.116
Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.
[the Commission on Audit] is not required to limit its review only to the grounds relied upon by a government agency's auditor with respect to disallowing certain disbursements of public funds. In consonance with its general audit power, respondent Commission on Audit is not merely legally permitted, but is also duty-bound to make its own assessment of the merits of the disallowed disbursement and not simply restrict itself to reviewing the validity of the ground relied upon by the auditor of the government agency concerned. To hold otherwise would render COA's vital constitutional power unduly limited and thereby useless and ineffective.127
Section 103. General liability for unlawful expenditures. Expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor.128
19.1. The liability of public officers and other persons for audit disallowances shall be determined on the basis of: (a) the nature of the disallowance; (b) the duties, responsibilities or obligations of the officers/persons concerned; (c) the extent of their participation or involvement in the disallowed transaction; and (d) the amount of losses or damages suffered by the government thereby. The following are illustrative examples:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
. . . .
19.1.3. Public officers who approve or authorize transactions involving the expenditure of government funds and uses of government properties shall be liable for all losses arising out of their negligence or failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family.
Section 103 of P.D. 1445 declares that expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor. The public official’s personal liability arises only if the expenditure of government funds was made in violation of law. In this case, petitioner’s act of entering into a contract on behalf of the local government unit without the requisite authority therefor was in violation of the Local Government Code. While petitioner may have relied on the opinion of the City Legal Officer, such reliance only serves to buttress his good faith. It does not, however, exculpate him from his personal liability under P.D. 1445.129
In common usage, the term “good faith” is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting “honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious.”135
Elenita Delgado – Approving Officer136
Oscar Sevilla- Approving Officer 137
Yolanda Quiñones – Chief Accountant138
Agrifina Lacson – Certifying Officer139
Erlinda Baltazar - Cashier140
Myrna Colag – Alternative Approving Officer141
Miriam Dimayuga – Alternate Approving Officer142
Payee | Position | Amount Disallowed | Allowance/Benefit Disallowed |
Notice of Disallowance No. 2002-002-101(01)143 | |||
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 550,000.00 | Rice and Medical Allowance and Allowances of Board Members and Secretary (net of allowable allowance of P500.00/mo pursuant to Sec. 7 of P.D. 474) for January 2001. |
Oscar Sevilla | Administrator | 5,000.00 | |
Pedro Mendoza | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Marietto Enecio | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Juan Peña | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Gloria Bañas | [not indicated in rollo] | 3,000.00 | |
G. Mendoza | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Ruben Ciron | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Notice of Disallowance No. 2002-005-101(01)144 | |||
Oscar Sevilla | Administrator | 5,000.00 | Rice and Medical Allowance, Representation Allowance of Board Members and Secretary (net of allowable allowance of P500.00/mo pursuant to Sec. 7 of P.D. 474) for February 2001. |
Pedro Mendoza | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Marietto Enecio | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Alfonso Cusi | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Ruben Ciron | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Gloria Bañas | [not indicated in rollo] | 3,000.00 | |
Notice of Disallowance No. 2002-006-101(01)145 | |||
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 565,400.00 | Rice and Medical Allowance |
Chona [illegible] | [not indicated in rollo] | 1,591.50 | Performance Incentive Allowance for Feb. 2001 |
[illegible] | [not indicated in rollo] | 2,508.25 | |
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 139,000.00 | Birthday and Employment Anniversary Bonus for February 2001 |
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 835,376.33 | Performance Incentive Allowance for March 2001 |
Jovino G. Tamayo | [not indicated in rollo] | 5,000.00 | Employment Anniversary Bonus |
Oscar M. Sevilla | Administrator | 5,000.00 | Representation Allowance of Board Members and Secretary (net of allowable allowance of P500.00/mo pursuant to Sec. 7 of P.D. 474) for March 2001. |
Jose T. Tale | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Pedro V. Mendoza | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Marietto A. Enecio | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Ruben Ciron | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Alfonso Cusi | Director | 5,700.00 | |
Gloria Bañas | [not indicated in rollo] | 3,000.00 | |
Notice of Disallowance No. 2002-007-101(01)146 | |||
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 561,000.00 | Rice and Medical Allowance for April 2001 |
Renita Bautista | [not indicated in rollo] | 30,800.00 | Rice/Med for March 2001 |
Chona Verceles | [not indicated in rollo] | 2,200.00 | Rice/Med for March 2001 |
Alfonso Rulloda | [not indicated in rollo] | 4,698.00 | Performance Incentive Allowance for Feb. 2001 |
Renita Bautista | [not indicated in rollo] | 15,400.00 | Rice[/][M]ed for April 2001 |
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 893,910.14 | Performance Incentive Allowance for April 2001 |
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 186,000.00 | Birthday and Employment Anniversary Bonus for April 2001 |
Notice of Disallowance No. 2002-008-101(01)147 | |||
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 552,200.00 | Rice and Medical Allowance for May 2001 |
Renita Bautista | [not indicated in rollo] | 30,669.50 | Performance Incentive Allowance for April 2001 |
Liberato [illegible] | [not indicated in rollo] | 2,200.00 | Rice/Med for April 2001 |
Emperatriz Aquino | [not indicated in rollo] | 1,098.75 | Performance Incentive Allowance for Feb. 2001 |
Alfonso Rulloda | [not indicated in rollo] | 4,698.00 | Performance Incentive Allowance for March 2001 |
Chona Verceles | [not indicated in rollo] | 1,591.50 | Performance Incentive Allowance for March 2001 |
Emperatriz Aquino | [not indicated in rollo] | 2,232.75 | Performance Incentive Allowance for March 2001 |
Jesus Manongdo | [not indicated in rollo] | 2,200.00 | Rice[/][M]ed for May 2001 |
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 124,000.00 | Birthday and Employment Anniversary Bonus for May 2001 |
Roberto [illegible] | [not indicated in rollo] | 3,000.00 | Anniversary Allowance |
Renita Bautista | [not indicated in rollo] | 11,600.00 | Rice/Med for May 2001 |
Erlinda Baltazar | Cashier | 877,270.30 | Performance Incentive Allowance for May 2001 |
Feliciano Tira, Jr. | [not indicated in rollo] | 4,400.00 | Rice/Med For April and May 2001 |
Liability for Illegal Expenditures. – Every expenditure or obligation authorized or incurred in violation of the provisions of this Code or of the general and special provisions contained in the annual General or other Appropriations Act shall be void. Every payment made in violation of said provisions shall be illegal and every official or employee authorizing or making such payment, or taking part therein, and every person receiving such payment shall be jointly and severally liable to the Government for the full amount so paid or received.
Endnotes:
* On leave.
1 Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989).
2 Rollo, p. 14.
3 Id. at 37. The decision was dated June 23, 2003 and was signed by Director Khem N. Inok.
4 Id. at 28. The decision dated March 3, 2005 was signed by Commissioners Guillermo N. Carague (Chairman), Emmanuel M. Dalman, and Reynaldo A. Villar.
5 Pres. Decree No. 474 (1974), Providing for the Reorganization of Maritime Functions in the Philippines, Creating the Maritime Industry Authority, and for Other Purposes.
6 National Compensation Circular No. 56 (1989), Rules and Regulations on the Standardization of Compensation and Position Classification Plan in the Government.
7 National Compensation Circular No. 59 (1989), List of Allowances/Additional Compensation of Government Officials and Employees Which Shall Be Deemed Integrated Into the Basic Salary.
8Rollo, p. 14.
9 Id. at 45.
10 Id. at 46.
11 Id. The amount granted for the per diems is P100.00 per meeting but not to exceed P500.00 per month, the commutable allowance is P500.00 per month.
12 Id. at 45. The amount granted for rice subsidy allowance is P1,200.00.
13 Id. The amount granted for medical allowance is P1,000.00 per month.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 46. The amount requested for reimbursible representation allowance is P5,000.00 for the Chairman, P4,000.00 for the Members, and P3,000.00 for the Board Secretary.
16 Id. at 47. The amount requested for performance incentives allowance is 25% of the basic salary.
17 Id. The amount requested for economic/efficiency/financial assistance benefit is P30,000.00.
18 Id. at 48. The amount requested for hearing allowance is P1,000.00.
19 Id. The amount requested for birthday month/off month/employment date anniversary allowances is P5,000.00.
20 Id. at 45.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id. at 14.
24 The Resident Auditor who issued the notices of disallowance is Ms. Loida T. Andres, State Auditor III, Unit Head.
25Rollo, p. 14.
26 Id. at 149–150.
27 Id. at 151–152.
28 Id. at 153–154.
29 Id. at 155–156.
30 Id. at 157–158.
31 Section 229 of the GAAM Volume I provides that “Officials and employees who are duly appointed by competent authority to any position in another government office or agency, in a concurrent capacity, may, in the discretion of the President, be allowed to receive additional compensation in the form of allowances or honoraria at such rates he shall fix and subject to such conditions as he may prescribe. Such additional compensation shall be paid from the appropriations of the office or agency benefitting from the concurrent service (Sec. 59, Bk VI, 1987 Adm. Code).
However, under Sec. 13, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President, Vice-President, the members of the cabinet and their deputies and assistants, shall not, unless otherwise provided in the constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double or indirect compensation (Sec. 8, Art. IX(b), 1987 Const.).
The contemplation of the Constitutional provisions which authorizes additional or double compensation is construed to mean statutes passed by the national legislative body (this includes decrees issued by the President under the martial law regime); it does not include ordinances or resolutions passed by local legislative bodies or governing boards, as the case may be. (COA Dec. 77-110, June 21, 1977).”
32Rollo, pp. 96 and 149–158.
33 Id. at 51–70.
34 Id. at 29–39. The decision was signed by Director Khem N. Inok.
35 Id. at 32 and 97.
36 Id. at 36–37.
37 Id. at 25.
38 Id. at 25–28. The decision was signed by Commissioners Guillermo N. Carague (Chaiman), Emmanuel M. Dalman, and Reynaldo A. Villar.
39 Id. at 28.
40 Id. at 27.
41 Id.
42 Id. at 27–28.
43 Id. at 31 and 95.
44 Id. at 40–43.
45 Id. at 78 and 180.
46 Id. at 93–179.
47 Id. at 184–194.
48 J. Brion, concurring and dissenting opinion in Technical Education and Skills Development Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 204869, March 11, 2014, [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
49City of General Santos v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 199439, April 22, 2014 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
50Rollo, p. 15.
51 Id. at 16.
52 Id. at 18 and 188.
53 506 Phil. 382 (2005) [Per Acting C.J. Panganiban, En Banc].
54 Id. at 388–389.
55Rollo, p. 105.
56 Id. at 108.
57 506 Phil. 382 (2005) [Per Acting C.J. Panganiban, En Banc].
58 519 Phil. 372 (2006) [Per J. Garcia, En Banc].
59 506 Phil. 382 (2005) [Per Acting C.J. Panganiban, En Banc].
60 519 Phil. 372 (2006) [Per J. Garcia, En Banc].
61 Id. at 383–384.
62Rollo, p. 110.
63 Id. at 111.
64 584 Phil. 132 (2008) [Per C.J. Puno, En Banc].
65Rollo, pp. 110–111.
66 Id. at 111.
67 Id.
68 Act No. 102 (1901), An Act Regulating the Salaries of Officers and Employees in the Philippine Civil Service; Commonwealth Act No. 402 (1938), An Act to Provide for the Classification of Civilian Positions and Standardization of Salaries in the Government; Pres. Decree No. 985 (1976), The Budgetary Reform Decree on Compensation and Position Classification of 1976; Pres. Decree No. 1597 (1978), Further Rationalizing the System of Compensation and Position Classification in the National Government.
69 Pres. Decree No. 985 (1976), The Budgetary Reform Decree on Compensation and Position Classification of 1976.
70 Pres. Decree No. 1597 (1978), Further Rationalizing the System of Compensation and Position Classification in the National Government.
71 Pres. Decree No. 1597 (1978), sec. 3. Repeal of special salary laws and regulations. All laws, decrees, executive orders and other issuances or parts thereof are hereby repealed that exempt agencies from the coverage of the National Compensation and Position Classification System as established by P.D. 985 and P.D. 1285, or which authorize and fix position classification, salaries, pay rates/ranges or allowances for specified positions to groups of officials and employees or to agencies that are inconsistent with the position classification or rates in the National Compensation and Position Classification Plan are hereby repealed.
72 Pres. Decree No. 1597 (1978), sec. 5. Allowances, honoraria and other fringe benefits. [These] which may be granted to government employees, whether payable by their offices or by other agencies of government shall be subject to the approval of the President upon recommendation of the Commissioner of the Budget. For this purpose, the Budget Commission shall continuously review and shall prepare . . . policies and levels of allowances and other fringe benefits applicable to government personnel, including honoraria or other forms of compensation for participation in projects which are authorized to pay additional compensation.
73Ambros v. Commission on Audit, 501 Phil. 255 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., En Banc].
74 Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 12.
75 Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 12.
76 Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 12.
77NAPOCOR Employees Consolidated Union v. National Power Corporation, 519 Phil. 372 (2006) [Per J. Garcia, En Banc].
78 Gutierrez v. Department of Budget and Management, 630 Phil. 1 (2010) [Per J. Abad, En Banc].
79 G.R. No. 185806, July 24, 2012, [Per J. Sereno, En Banc].
80 Id.
81 519 Phil. 372 (2006) [Per J. Garcia, En Banc].
82 Id. at 384.
83 551 Phil. 878 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].
84 Id. at 888.
85 461 Phil. 737 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].
86 Id. at 749–750.
87 630 Phil. 1 (2010) [Per J. Abad, En Banc].
88 Id. at 14–16.
89 519 Phil. 372 (2006) [Per J. Garcia, En Banc].
90 Id. at 388–389.
91 Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 2.
92 Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 9.
93 Rep. Act No. 6758 (1989), sec. 12.
94Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Employees Union v. Commission on Audit, 584 Phil. 132 (2008) [Per C.J. Puno, En Banc].
95 Id. at 139–140.
96 370 Phil. 793 (1999) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
97 Id. at 805–809.
98 584 Phil. 132 (2008) [Per C.J. Puno, En Banc].
99 Id. at 140.
100 584 Phil. 246 (2008) [Per J. Corona, En Banc].
101 Id. at 282–283.
102 See Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. v. Department of Foreign Affairs, 533 Phil. 590 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division] where this court held that “[a]ll that is required for the valid exercise of this power of subordinate legislation is that the regulation must be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; and that the regulation be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law.”
103 G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004, 431 SCRA 534 [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].
104 Id. at 555.
105 See Const. (1987), art. VIII, sec. 3; Const. (1987), art. IX(A), sec. 5; Const. (1987), art. XI, sec. 14.
106See Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012, 678 SCRA 1 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
107 G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992, 208 SCRA 133 [Per J. Gutierrez, En Banc].
108 Id. at 150.
109 A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC, July 31, 2012, 678 SCRA 1 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
110 Id. at 16.
111 Blaquera v. Commission on Audit, 356 Phil. 678, 763 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
112 G.R. No. 189774, September 18, 2012, 681 SCRA 102 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
113 Const. (1987), art. IX(D), sec. 2.
114Veloso v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 193677, September 6, 2011, 656 SCRA 767, 780 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
115 633 Phil. 174 (2010) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc].
116 Id. at 192.
117 REVISED RULES OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (2009), Rule V, secs. 1 and 4.
118 REVISED RULES OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (2009), Rule VII, sec. 1.
119 RULES OF COURT, Rule 64.
120Rollo, p. 19.
121 Id. at 116.
122 See Gutierrez v. Department Budget and Management, 630 Phil. 1 (2010) [Per J. Abad, En Banc].
123Rollo, p. 22.
124 Id.
125 CONST. (1987), art. IX(D), sec. 2 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.
(2) The Commission shall have 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.
126Rollo, pp. 119–120. COA REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE (1997), Rule II, sec. 4 provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 4. Appellate Jurisdiction. – The Commission Proper shall have appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, alter or affirm the reports, resolutions, orders, decisions and other dispositions of the Auditors or Directors concerned.
127 Yap v. Commission on Audit, 633 Phil. 174 (2010) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc].
128 A similar provision is also found in Exec. Order No. 292 (1987), book V, chap. 9, sec. 52.
129Vicencio v. Villar, G.R. No. 182069, July 3, 2012, 675 SCRA 468, 480 [Per J. Sereno, En Banc].
130 See Mendoza v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 195395, September 10, 2013, 705 SCRA 306 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]; Magno v. Commission on Audit, 558 Phil. 76 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc]; Singson v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 159355, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 36 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc]; Lumayna v. Commission on Audit, 616 Phil. 928 (2009) [Per J. del Castillo, En Banc]; Barbo v. Commission on Audit, 589 Phil. 289 (2008) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc]; Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Government Service Insurance System v. Commission on Audit, et al., 480 Phil. 861 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, En Banc]; Veloso v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 193677, September 6, 2011, 656 SCRA 767 [Per J. Peralta, En Banc]; Abanilla v. Commission on Audit, 505 Phil. 202 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; Home Development Mutual Fund v. Commission on Audit, 483 Phil. 666 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]; Public Estates Authority v. Commission on Audit, 541 Phil. 412 (2007) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]; Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. Commission on Audit, 599 Phil. 455 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]; Benguet State University v. Commission on Audit, 551 Phil. 878 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc]; Agra v. Commission on Audit, 661 Phil. 563 (2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc]; Blaquera v. Commission on Audit, 356 Phil. 678 (1998) [Per J. Purisima, En Banc].
131Manila International Airport Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 194710, February 14, 2012, 665 SCRA 653 [Per J. Reyes, En Banc]; Benguet State University v. Commission on Audit, 551 Phil. 878 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc].
132 J. Brion, concurring and dissenting opinion in Technical Education and Skills Development Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 204869, March 11, 2014, [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
133Technical Education and Skills Development Authority v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 204869, March 11, 2014, [Per J. Carpio, En Banc]; See Velasco v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 189774, September 18, 2012, 681 SCRA 102 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
134 G.R. No. 189767, July 3, 2012, 675 SCRA 513 [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc].
135 Id. at 524.
136Rollo, pp. 149 and 151.
137 Id. at 153, 155, and 157.
138 Id. at 149, 151, 153, 155, and 157.
139 Id. at 149, 151, 153, and 155.
140 Id. at 149, 151, 153, 155, 157.
141 Id. at 157.
142 Id.
143 Id. at 149.
144 Id. at 151.
145 Id. at 153.
146 Id. at 155.
147 Id. at 157.
148 Velasco v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 189774, September 18, 2012, 681 SCRA 102 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
BRION, J.:
Section 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. - All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.
Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary of said official or employee and shall be paid by the National Government. (Underlines and emphasis ours)
1. Elenita Delgado – Approving Officer
2. Yolanda Quinones – Chief Accountant
3. Agrifina Lacson – Certifying Officer
4. Erlinda Baltazar – Cashier
5. Myrna Colag – Alternate Approving Officer
6. Miriam Dimayuga – Alternate Approving Officer
Endnotes:
1 G.R. No. 204869, March 11, 2014.
2Section 43. Liability for Illegal Expenditures. - Every expenditure or obligation authorized or incurred in violation of the provisions of this Code or of the general and special provisions contained in the annual General or other Appropriations Act shall be void. Every payment made in violation of said provisions shall be illegal and every official or employee authorizing or making such payment, or taking part therein, and every person receiving such payment shall be jointly and severally liable to the Government for the full amount so paid or received.
Any official or employee of the Government knowingly incurring any obligation, or authorizing any expenditure in violation of the provisions herein, or taking part therein, shall be dismissed from the service, after due notice and hearing by the duly authorized appointing official. If the appointing official is other than the President and should he fail to remove such official or employee, the President may exercise the power of removal.
3Section 52. General Liability for Unlawful Expenditures. - Expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor.
4Section 103. General liability for unlawful expenditures. Expenditures of government funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor.
5Supra note 1.
6 G.R. No. 157492, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 409.
7 See pages 23-25 of the Decision.
8Supra note 1.cralawred