G.R. No. 169726 - Department of Budget and Management vs. Leones

Olivia D. Leones served as the Municipal Treasurer of Bacnotan, La Union.
In addition to her regular salary, she received a Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) as part of her compensation package.

In December 1996, respondent was reassigned to the Office of the Provincial Treasurer, La Union, pending the resolution of administrative cases filed against her.
Following the reassignment, the Municipality of Bacnotan ceased to pay her RATA despite her prior entitlement.

After failing to secure administrative relief regarding the matter, respondent filed a mandamus suit with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando City, La Union.
The suit was filed against both the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and Bacnotan Mayor Ma. Minda Fontanilla, seeking to compel payment of her RATA.
The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the dismissal.
As respondent did not further pursue the case, the RTC’s ruling became final on June 30, 2003.

Despite the earlier judicial resolution, respondent sought confirmation of her entitlement to RATA by consulting the DBM Secretary.
On September 3, 2003, the DBM issued an Opinion stating that she was entitled to receive RATA only for the year 1999, based on the provision of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for that year, which did not require actual performance of her functions.
Dissatisfied with this narrowed relief, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, contesting the DBM’s reliance on the actual performance requirement and arguing a violation of the non-dimunition of salary rule upon reassignment.

The DBM argued that RATA is an allowance distinct from salary and not inherently attached to the position but rather conditioned upon the actual performance of duties.
The DBM maintained that because respondent was not performing her traditional functions as Municipal Treasurer while reassigned to the Provincial Treasurer’s office, she was not entitled to the allowance (except for the special case in 1999).

The respondent’s compensation and allowances, including RATA, are funded by local budget appropriations from the Municipality of Bacnotan rather than by national appropriations under the GAAs.
The municipal ordinances governing Bacnotan’s annual budget differ from the provisions of the GAAs, which the DBM invoked in support of its position.

Whether, following her reassignment to the Provincial Treasurer’s office, respondent Olivia D. Leones was still entitled to receive her Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA).
Whether the denial of RATA payment on the ground of non-performance of her traditional functions upon reassignment violates the rule on non-dimunition of salary and allowances.
Whether the DBM’s reliance on the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) requiring actual performance of functions is applicable to local government officials whose compensation is governed by locally appropriated funds.