De Jesus vs. Commission on Audit

G.R. No. 149154
COA disallowed allowances and bonuses paid to Catbalogan Water District board members, citing PD 198 violations. SC upheld disallowance but exempted refund due to good faith reliance on LWUA resolution.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 149154)

Facts:

Rodolfo S. De Jesus, Edelwina DG. Parungao, Hermilo S. Balucan, Avelino C. Castillo, Danilo B. De Leon (Interim Board of Directors, Catbalogan Water District), and Alice Marie C. Osorio (Board Secretary) v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 149154, June 10, 2003, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.

An auditing team from the Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office No. VIII audited the accounts of the Catbalogan Water District (CWD) and found that between May–December 1997 and April–June 1998 members of the interim Board and its secretary received various benefits — Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), Rice Allowance, Productivity Incentive Bonus, Anniversary Bonus, Year-End Bonus and cash gifts — purportedly authorized by Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) Resolution No. 313, series of 1995. The COA issued notices of disallowance dated 1 October 1998 disallowing those payments on the ground that they contravened Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 198 (PD 198).

Petitioners appealed to COA Regional Director Dominador T. Tersol, who denied the appeal. They then filed a petition for review with the COA central office; the COA denied their petition in a decision dated 12 September 2000 and likewise denied their motion for reconsideration on 5 July 2001. Petitioners thereupon filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court in this Court, challenging (1) COA's motu proprio exercise of jurisdiction to hold LWUA Resolution No. 313 incompatible with Section 13 of PD 198, (2) COA's ruling that Section 13 prohibits the questioned allowances and bonuses, and (3) COA's demand that petitioners refund the disallowed amounts.

The COA defended its disallowance on the basis that Section 13 of PD 198 limits compensation of water-district directors to per diems and precludes other compensation; COA relied on its...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Did the COA exceed its jurisdiction or usurp the authority of the LWUA when it construed Section 13 of PD 198 and declared LWUA Resolution No. 313 not in conformity therewith?
  • Does Section 13 of PD 198, as amended, prohibit members of water-district boards from receiving RATA, extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (EME), and other allowances and bonuses beyond per diems?
  • Must petitioners refund the allowances and bonuses disallowed by the COA despite having...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)

Philippine legal research, made clearer
AI-generated research aids. Verify with Full Text.