Case Digest (G.R. No. 254394)
Facts:
The case involves Libertad O. Alameda, the Municipal Mayor of San Agustin, Surigao del Sur, along with Maria Lourdes A. Navaja, the Municipal Accountant (retired), and Rosenda D. Lamela, the Municipal Budget Officer, as petitioners against the Commission on Audit (COA), represented by its Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo and Commissioners Jose A. Fabia and Isabel D. Agito, as respondents. The events leading to this case began on September 11, 2012, when Dr. Edmund L. Lamela was appointed as the Municipal Health Officer (MHO) of San Agustin under a temporary appointment valid for 12 months, as per Executive Order No. 292, known as the Administrative Code of 1987. Following the 2013 elections, Libertad O. Alameda assumed the role of Municipal Mayor. On February 13, 2015, Alameda, through Navaja, received a Notice of Disallowance (ND) from the COA, which disallowed a total amount of P1,248,085.69 for salaries and benefits paid to Dr. Lamela from September 12, 2013, to December 3...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 254394)
Facts:
- Appointment of Dr. Lamela: Dr. Edmund L. Lamela was appointed as Municipal Health Officer (MHO) of San Agustin, Surigao del Sur, on 11 September 2012, under a temporary appointment valid for 12 months.
- Election of Mayor Alameda: Libertad O. Alameda was elected as the new municipal mayor during the 2013 elections.
- Notice of Disallowance (ND): On 13 February 2015, COA issued an ND dated 26 January 2015, disallowing P1,248,085.69 paid to Dr. Lamela as salaries and benefits from 12 September 2013 to 31 December 2014, citing lack of a valid appointment.
- Identified Liable Officials: Mayor Alameda, Municipal Accountant Maria Lourdes A. Navaja, Municipal Budget Officer Rosenda D. Lamela, HRMO Designate Abundia P. Salinas, and Municipal Treasurer Julia R. Orcullo were held liable for approving or certifying the payments.
- Petitioners' Defense: Petitioners argued Dr. Lamela performed his duties in good faith and benefited the municipality, claiming he acted as a de facto officer. They also contended they believed his appointment was permanent.
Issue:
- Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion by:
- Declaring the material dates of the case without legal basis.
- Holding that Dr. Lamela was not a de facto officer.
- Concluding Dr. Lamela was entitled to compensation based on equity but not as a de facto officer.
- Ordering petitioners to refund the disallowed amount without factual or legal basis.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)