Case Digest (G.R. No. 253127)
Facts:
The case involves Lucilo R. Bayron in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Puerto Princesa, along with Jimmy L. Carbonell, Henry A. Gadiano, Feliberto S. Oliveros III, Roberto D. Herrera (in his official capacity as Supervising Administrative Officer and Acting Assistant Budget Officer), and Mylene J. Atienza (in her official capacity as Administrative Officer IV and a member of the Screening & Evaluation Committee of the City Government of Puerto Princesa), collectively referred to as Bayron et al. The controversy started with the establishment in 2010 of the Early & Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (EVSIP) of the Puerto Princesa City Government (PPCG) through Ordinance No. 438 and Resolution No. 850-2010. The Commission on Audit (COA) issued several Notices of Disallowance (NDs) in 2013 concerning payments under the EVSIP amounting to Php 89,672,400.74, finding Bayron et al. liable. After administrative appeals were denied by the COA en banc and the case forwardCase Digest (G.R. No. 253127)
Facts:
- Establishment of EVSIP and Initial Disallowance
- The Puerto Princesa City Government (PPCG) enacted Ordinance No. 438 dated June 15, 2010, and Resolution No. 850-2010 dated June 21, 2010, establishing the Early & Voluntary Separation Incentive Program (EVSIP).
- The EVSIP aimed to grant incentives and additional compensation to PPCG officials and employees who opt to avail of early separation, purportedly to enhance government operations by maximizing human resources.
- Commission on Audit's (COA) auditors issued multiple Notices of Disallowance (NDs) in 2013, disallowing payments under EVSIP totaling PHP 89,672,400.74 on grounds of illegality and excessiveness (tantamount to double compensation).
- Administrative Proceedings and Petition for Certiorari
- Bayron et al., persons identified in the NDs as liable, exhausted administrative appeals with the COA which were denied, affirming the NDs and forwarding case records to the Office of the Ombudsman.
- Without filing a motion for reconsideration at COA, Bayron et al. filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court challenging the disallowances and the validity of the EVSIP governance.
- Supreme Court Decision (November 29, 2022)
- The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed COA Decision No. 2020-100.
- The Court declared Ordinance No. 438 and Resolution No. 850-2010 null and void as ultra vires and contrary to Section 28(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by RA 4968 (Teves Retirement Law).
- The Court noted that EVSIP constituted a separate, supplementary retirement plan which national law does not permit for local government units (LGUs).
- Due to the Court's nullity ruling, the operative fact doctrine was applied, but the Court deferred judgment on Bayron et al.'s claim of good faith, respecting the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
- The Court encouraged better coordination between COA and Department of Budget & Management (DBM) to monitor local ordinances for compliance with national laws.
- Motion for Reconsideration by Bayron et al.
- Bayron et al. contended that COA's NDs were collateral attacks on the local legislation, thus illegal.
- They argued the EVSIP was a temporary adjunct to planned reorganization and did not create a supplementary early retirement plan, citing City of General Santos v. COA.
- Bayron et al. claimed good faith, attaching DBM letters showing ambiguous or delayed disallowance of EVSIP.
- COA, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the motion, reiterating the legality of its disallowance and noting the ultra vires nature of EVSIP.
Issues:
- Whether COA's NDs constituted collateral attacks on the local legislation Ordinance No. 438 and Resolution No. 850-2010, thus amounting to grave abuse of discretion.
- Whether the EVSIP constituted an unlawful supplementary early retirement plan proscribed by national law.
- Whether the Court may resolve Bayron et al.'s claim of good faith in implementing EVSIP.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)