Case Digest (G.R. No. 182178)
Facts:
In Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu vs. Province of Cebu (G.R. No. 141386, November 29, 2001), the Commission on Audit (COA) of Cebu represented by Provincial Auditor Roy L. Ursal filed a petition for review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, Branch 20, Civil Case No. CEB-24422. During the COA audit of provincial accounts for January to June 1998, it was discovered that the salaries and personnel-related benefits of public school teachers appointed by Governor Pablo P. Garcia in his capacity as chairman of the provincial school board—teachers handling extension classes without items in the DECS plantilla—had been charged to the province’s Special Education Fund (SEF). The province also charged college scholarship grants to the SEF. COA issued Notices of Suspension, asserting these disbursements were not authorized charges against the SEF. In response, the province filed a petition for declaratory relief. On December 13, 1999, the RTC held theseCase Digest (G.R. No. 182178)
Facts:
- Parties and procedural history
- Petitioners: Commission on Audit (COA) of the Province of Cebu, represented by Provincial Auditor Roy L. Ursal; Respondent: Province of Cebu, represented by Governor Pablo P. Garcia.
- COA audited provincial accounts for January–June 1998 and issued Notices of Suspension in 1999 for alleged unauthorized SEF disbursements.
- The Province filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Cebu City (Civil Case No. CEB-24422). On December 13, 1999, the RTC held that the questioned expenses were authorized SEF expenditures. COA elevated the case to the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 141386; decided November 29, 2001.
- Underlying factual developments
- Under Section 98, Local Government Code (LGC), the Governor, as chair of the provincial school board, appointed teachers for extension classes not in the national education plantilla. Their salaries and benefits were charged to the provincial Special Education Fund (SEF).
- The province also charged college scholarship grants to the SEF. COA found both types of disbursements contrary to law and suspended their release.
- The province sought a declaratory judgment to confirm authority to use SEF proceeds for those purposes.
- Statutory framework
- Republic Act (R.A.) No. 5447 (1968) created the SEF, funded by an additional 1% real property tax and certain tobacco taxes, and enumerated authorized expenditures—including teacher salaries and scholarships.
- Presidential Decree No. 464 (Real Property Tax Code) imposed the additional 1% SEF tax.
- LGC of 1991 revised SEF provisions:
- Section 235 authorizes the 1% real property tax for SEF.
- Section 272 limits SEF uses to operation and maintenance of public schools, construction and repair of facilities, educational research, books and periodicals, and sports development.
- Section 100(c) prioritizes construction and maintenance of school buildings, establishment and maintenance of extension classes, and sports activities.
Issues:
- Substantive issues
- May the salaries and personnel-related benefits of public school teachers appointed by local school boards for extension classes be charged to the SEF?
- May college scholarship grants be charged to the SEF?
- Procedural issue
- Was the filing of a petition for declaratory relief proper despite the absence of an actual breach of law?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)