Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37051)
Facts:
The case of Aleli C. Almadovar versus Ma. Gracia M. Pulido-Tan, Chairperson of the Commission on Audit (COA) revolves around a petition for certiorari relating to Notices of Disallowances (NDs) issued against the Isabela Water District (ISAWAD). The petitioner, Aleli C. Almadovar, served as the General Manager of ISAWAD, a government-owned and controlled corporation established under Presidential Decree No. 198. The NDs were issued on January 25, 2007, by Catalino S. Genel, the Audit Team Leader for ISAWAD. The notices encompassed four disallowed payments due to alleged lack of legal basis. The payments included a salary increase for the GM (from P20,823.00 to P35,574.00 from August to December 2005 amounting to P73,755.00), the legal retainer's fees for Atty. Quirino Esguerra Jr. (amounting to P48,000.00) and honorarium for Atty. Fortunato G. Operario Jr. (P24,000.00), and excessive Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) over the prescribed limits (P6,000.00).
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37051)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Aleli C. Almadovar, General Manager of Isawad (Isabela Water District), a government-owned and controlled corporation created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 198 (as amended by R.A. No. 9286), filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- The petition seeks to reverse and set aside:
- The December 29, 2011 Decision of the Commission on Audit (COA), and
- The April 4, 2014 En Banc Resolution which affirmed the COA Regional Office’s October 28, 2010 Decision concerning various Notices of Disallowance (NDs).
- Issuance of Notices of Disallowance (NDs)
- On January 25, 2007, Catalino S. Genel, Audit Team Leader for ISAWAD, issued several NDs for various disbursements including:
- ND No. 2006-001 (2005) – Salary increase for the GM from P20,823.00 to P35,574.00 without legal basis;
- ND No. 2006-002 (2005) – Legal retainer’s fee for a private counsel, initially P48,000.00, later reduced due to partial compliance for part of the period;
- ND No. 2006-003 (2005) – Payment of honorarium to an OGCC lawyer without express authority; and
- ND No. 2006-004 (2005) – Payment of Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) in excess of the authorized rate.
- Petitioner contended that her salary increase was in accordance with R.A. No. 9286 which purportedly exempted local water districts from the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) and that other disbursements were similarly proper as they were made following the procedures supposedly set by law.
- Processing of the Appeal
- On April 26, 2007, petitioner filed an appeal with the Regional Cluster Director realigning the dispute with Cluster Ill-Public Utilities, Corporation Government Sector, which was then endorsed to the COA Regional Office.
- Petitioner argued that:
- The salary increase and the corresponding RATA were lawfully fixed pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 9286 and within the scale provided by the Office of the Philippine Association of Water Districts, Inc.; and
- Engagements of private counsel (Atty. Quirino Esguerra Jr. and Atty. Fortunato G. Operario Jr.) were proper either by being in line with existing procedures or because any delay in securing the written concurrence of the COA was due to factors beyond her control.
- COA Regional Office and COA Rulings
- On October 28, 2010, the COA Regional Office rendered a decision:
- It affirmed the disallowance of the salary increase, finding it violated R.A. No. 6758 (Salary Standardization Law) by exceeding the allowed compensation for local water district general managers;
- It upheld the disallowance of the excessive RATA; and
- It disallowed the honorarium payment to Atty. Operario as unnecessary and excessive.
- On December 29, 2011, the COA reaffirmed the Regional Office’s ruling with emphasis on:
- The need for written conformity of the OGCC and the written concurrence of the COA before hiring a private lawyer or renewing a retainership contract; and
- The improper nature of the payments to Atty. Esguerra for services rendered without the necessary prior written approvals.
- Petitioner’s further motion for reconsideration was denied by the COA En Banc in its April 4, 2014 Resolution.
Issues:
- Disbursement Legality
- Whether the disbursements under the Notices of Disallowances were improper.
- Whether, in the event of their impropriety, the petitioner is liable to refund the amounts disbursed.
- Specific Points Raised by the Petitioner
- The petitioner argued that her salary increase was proper under R.A. No. 9286 which impliedly repealed R.A. No. 6758 (the SSL) for LWDs.
- She maintained that the scale and amount for her salary and RATA were in accordance with guidelines provided by the Office of the Philippine Association of Water Districts, Inc.
- Additionally, she claimed that the payments for legal services (to Atty. Esguerra and Atty. Operario) were valid:
- As the renewals of their retainership contracts did not necessarily require re-securing COA concurrence; and
- On the basis of alleged delays by the COA in providing the necessary written concurrence.
- Lastly, petitioner sought a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or TRO, arguing that without relief she would suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)