Case Digest (G.R. No. 237987) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Department of Public Works and Highways, Region IV-A and Genevieve E. Cuaresma v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 237987, March 19, 2019, En Banc), the DPWH Central Office issued on December 16, 2008 a memorandum under A.O. No. 135, s. 2005 authorizing the grant of Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Incentive to rank-and-file employees for 2008 from savings in Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), Engineering and Administrative Overhead (EAO), and completed projects. Pursuant to this, DPWH Regional Office IV-A released ₱3,915,000 CNA Incentive sourced from EAO. On December 14, 2009, COA Regional Office IV-A issued Notice of Disallowance No. 09-01-101-(09) disallowing the incentive because DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1 limits CNA Incentive funding solely to MOOE savings. COA IV-A denied DPWH IV-A’s appeal in Decision No. 2013-29 (Oct. 21, 2013). The DPWH IV-A Employees Association’s petition for review to the COA Proper was denied in Decision No. 2016-377 (Nov. 1 Case Digest (G.R. No. 237987) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Grant of CNA Incentive
- On December 16, 2008, DPWH Secretary Ebdane issued a memorandum authorizing the grant of Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Incentive to rank-and-file employees for 2008, to be paid out of savings from MOOE, completed projects, and EAO, subject to accounting and auditing rules.
- The memorandum was based on AO No. 135, s. 2005 and PSLMC Res. No. 04, s. 2002.
- Release and Disallowance
- DPWH Regional Office IV-A released P3,915,000.00 CNA Incentive for 2008 to employees and officers.
- On January 6, 2010, COA IV-A issued ND No. 09-01-101-(09) dated December 14, 2009, disallowing the amount because it was sourced from EAO in violation of DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1 (which limits funding to MOOE savings). It also held certifying officers, including Genevieve E. Cuaresma, liable.
- Appeals and COA Decisions
- DPWH IV-A appealed to COA IV-A which, in Decision No. 2013-29 (October 21, 2013), affirmed the disallowance and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
- The DPWH IV-A Employees Association, through Engr. Villanueva, petitioned COA Proper. Its Decision No. 2016-377 (November 10, 2016) denied the petition, upheld the ND, and denied proof of required cost-cutting measures. A reconsideration was denied in Resolution No. 2017-458 (December 27, 2017), with finality, but passive recipients were exempted from refund while certifying officers remained liable.
- Cuaresma, as a liable certifying officer, filed a certiorari petition before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the COA’s Decision and Resolution.
Issues:
- Whether the grant of the CNA Incentive was valid and supported by law and pertinent rules and regulations.
- Whether COA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying with finality the motion for reconsideration and affirming the petition denial and Notice of Disallowance.
- Whether COA acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring passive recipients not liable for refund while holding certifying/approving officers solidarily liable based on Silang case.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)