EN BANC
G.R. No. 217999, July 26, 2016
TERESITA P. DE GUZMAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS FORMER GENERAL MANAGER; BERNADETTE B. VELASQUEZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS FINANCE MANAGER; ATTY. RODOLFO T. TABANGIN, ATTY. ANTONIO A. ESPIRITU, ATTY. MOISES P. CATING, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS FORMER MEMBERS OF THE BAGNIO WATER DISTRICT (BWD) BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND SONIA A. DAOAS AND ENGR. FELINO D. LAGMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS INCUMBENT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CENTRAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., COMMISSIONER HEIDI MENDOZA, AND NILDA B. PLARAS, DIRECTOR IV, COMMISSION SECRETARY, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO JR., J.:
Foregoing premises considered, herein appeal by the BWD is denied and the disallowance sustained.In the presently assailed September 25, 2012 Decision, the COA-Commission Proper similarly affirmed the Notice of Disallowance and sustained the Regional Office's decision, ruling in this wise:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit and the COA-CAR Decision No. 2009-012 dated September 14, 2009 is AFFIRMED.Hence, the present petition.
Sec. 13. Compensation. - Each director shall receive per diem to be determined by the Board, for each meeting of the Board actually attended by him, but no director shall receive per diems in any given month in excess of the equivalent of the total per diem of four meetings in any given month.
Any per diem in excess of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) shall be subject to the approval of the Administration. In addition thereto, each director shall receive allowances and benefits as the Board may prescribe subject to the approval of the Administration. (Emphasis supplied)Meanwhile, Section 3(c) of AO 103 states:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC. 3. All NGAs, SUCs, GOCCs, GFIs and OGCEs, whether exempt from the Salary Standardization Law or not, are hereby directed to:Plainly stated, PD 198 allows the BWD to prescribe per diems greater than PI50 per member for each meeting, subject to the approval of the LWUA, while AO 103 prescribes a limit on the total amount of per diems a director can receive in a month. There is clearly no conflict between PD 198 and AO 103, as AO 103 does not negate the power of the LWUA to approve applications for per diems greater than P150.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x
(c) For other non-full-time officials and employees, including members of their governing boards, committees, and commissions: (i) suspend the grant of new or additional benefits, such as but not limited to per diems, honoraria, housing and miscellaneous allowances, or car plans; and (ii) in the case of those receiving per diems, honoraria and other fringe benefits in excess of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) per month, reduce the combined total of said per diems, honoraria and benefits to a maximum of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) per month. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. (Emphasis supplied)The President's power of control was explained in Province of Negros Occidental v. Commissioners, Commission on Audit8 as "the power to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the perfoi-mance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the President over that of the subordinate officer."
SEC. 7. This Administrative Order shall take effect immediately upon its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.Clearly, the effectivity of AO 103 does not hinge upon the receipt of a copy thereof by the affected offices. Whether or not the LWUA actually received a copy of the AO is of no moment. AO 103 is unequivocal that it "shall take effect IMMEDIATELY upon its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Thus, AO 103 became effective upon its publication on September 3, 2004. This means that AO 103 was already effective when the third and fourth checks were issued on September 15 and 16, 2004. As correctly pointed out by the COA, petitioners' claim of good faith is, therefore, unfounded.
First, while the incentive benefits in Blaquera were for CY 1992 and paid prior to the issuance of A.O. 29 on January 19, 1993, the incentive awards subject of the instant petition were released in December of 1993. When, therefore, the heads of departments and agencies in Blaquera erroneously authorized the incentive benefits to the employee, they did not then have the benefit of the categorical pronouncement of the President in A.O. 29 x x x. (Emphasis supplied)Plainly, in the case at bar, the payment of the per diems was uncalled for inasmuch as AO 103 was issued after and superseded MC 004-02.
At the time petitioners received the additional allowances and bonuses, the Court had not yet decided Baybay Water District. Petitioners had no knowledge that such payment was without legal basis. Thus, being in good faith, petitioners need not refund the allowances and bonuses they received but disallowed by the COA.16 (Emphasis supplied)Such is not the case here where AO 103 categorically and clearly ordered the discontinuance of per diems in excess of P20,000. There is no room for interpretation and so petitioners' failure to adhere to AO 103 is unwarranted and cannot be countenanced. Petitioners BWD directors each received P33,600 for the month of September 2004. Petitioners must, therefore, reimburse the amount they received in excess of the allowed P20,000, that is, P13,600 each or the aggregate amount of P68,000.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 39-43. Penned by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan and Commissioners Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Heidi L. Mendoza.
2 Id. at 18-19.
3 Id. at 9.
4 Id. at 26-29.
5 Id. at 8.
6Office of the Solicitor General v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 199027, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 469.
7Dreamwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 466, 474-475.
8 G.R. No. 182574, September 28, 2010, 631 SCRA 431, 441-442.
9Espinas v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 198271, April 1, 2014, 720 SCRA 302. (The Local Water Utilities Administration [LWUA] is a government-owned and controlled corporation [GOCC] created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. [PD] 198, as amended, otherwise known as the 'Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973); National Marketing Corporation v. Area, No. L-25743, September 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 648 (controlled by the government, such as the NAMARCO, partake of the nature of government bureaus or offices, which are administratively supervised by the Administrator of the Office of Economic Coordination, "whose compensation and rank shall be that of a head of an Executive Department" and who "shall be responsible to the President of the Philippines under whose control his functions ... shall be exercised.").
10 Id.
11 G.R. No. 109406, September 11, 1998, 295 SCRA 366.
12 G.R. No. 149154, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 666.
13Rollo, pp. 77-85.
14 Id. at 83.
15 G.R. No. 149633, November 30, 2006, 509 SCRA 138, 148.
16 Supra note 12, at 677.