G.R. No. 112371 - Domingo vs. Commission on Audit

Petitioner Aida Domingo was appointed by the President as Regional Director, Region V of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) on March 23, 1987, and duly assumed office.
Several government vehicles were endorsed to the Regional Office of DSWD for the official use of its personnel. These vehicles included a Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep, a Kaiser Cargo Truck, a Trailer Jeep, a Willyas Army Rebuilt Jeep, and a Nissan Double Cab.

On November 14, 1989, Regional Auditor Manuel Caaares communicated to the petitioner that post-audit reports on the disbursement accounts of the DSWD Regional Office revealed that officials who were provided with government vehicles were still collecting transportation allowances.
The auditor requested that the petitioner, in her capacity as Regional Director, instruct all concerned persons to immediately cease collecting the said allowances.

Despite being assigned a government vehicle for official use, the petitioner maintained her entitlement to a commutable transportation allowance. She collected a total of ₱48,600.00 for the period from July 1, 1988, to December 31, 1990.
Petitioner's argument centered on claiming that transportation allowance should only be disallowed for the days on which the official vehicle was actually used. She contended that since she used the government vehicle for only 32 days – for which she refunded ₱1,600.00 – she was entitled to claim TA for the remaining days.

On May 18, 1990, the petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the auditor’s directive was denied.
Subsequently, on July 8, 1992, the petitioner received CSB No. 92-003-101 from the auditor, reflecting the disallowance of the transportation allowance claim, referencing COA Decision No. 1745 dated February 26, 1991.
Petitioner appealed the auditor’s action to the Commission on Audit on August 8, 1992, but the appeal was dismissed by COA on August 25, 1993, with the rationale based on the earlier COA decision.

Section 28 of Republic Act 6688 (General Appropriations Act of 1989) provided that transportation allowance shall not be granted to officials who are assigned a government vehicle or use government motor transportation, subject to approvals by the President.
Similar provisions were found in the General Appropriations Acts of 1988, 1990, and 1991, all of which categorically prohibited officials from receiving transportation allowances if assigned a government vehicle.
The basis for these provisions is traced to Presidential Decree 733 and COA Circular No. 75-6 of November 7, 1975, which regulated the use of government vehicles and related transportation allowances.

In Bustamante vs. Commissioner on Audit, 216 SCRA 134, the Supreme Court held that if an official is provided with a government vehicle, he/she cannot, concurrently, claim a transportation allowance.
The decision also cited the interpretation that the words used in the statutory provisions – particularly “assigned” rather than “used” – imply an absolute exclusion of the transportation allowance for any government official provided with a government vehicle.

Whether a government official who is assigned a government vehicle is entitled to claim a commutable transportation allowance for the days on which the vehicle is not actually used.

Whether the plain and categorical language in the statutory provisions, particularly the use of the term “assigned,” precludes any claim for transportation allowances regardless of whether the vehicle was used on a given day.

Whether legislative intent was that an official, once in possession of or being assigned a government vehicle, forfeits any additional benefit from a transportation allowance.
The issue involved scrutinizing if the refund rendered (₱1,600.00 for the days the vehicle was used) alters the categorical prohibition imposed by the statutory language.