Title
Abrigo vs. Commissioner on Audit-Commission Proper
Case
G.R. No. 253117
Decision Date
Mar 29, 2022
MWSS employees challenged COA's disallowance of meal allowances; SC upheld COA but relaxed rules, adjusted incumbency date, and absolved some officers.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 253117)

Applicable Law

The relevant legal framework for this case includes the following: the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989), Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code), and other pertinent regulations.

Background of the Dispute

The case arises from Notice of Disallowance (ND) issued by the COA against past meal allowances granted to MWSS-CO employees for calendar years 2012 and 2013 totaling approximately P8,173,730.00. The COA determined that the allowances exceeded the allowable amount set by the Corporate Operating Budget (COB) approved by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and asserted that non-incumbents were not entitled to any meal allowance. The petitioners contested the legality of these NDs, maintaining that the MWSS Board had the authority to approve such allowances.

Initial Ruling by COA Cluster Director

The COA Cluster Director upheld the NDs, asserting the absence of prior Presidential approval for the allowances as a violation of existing regulations. The director stated that the benefits mentioned in the Concession Agreements only applied to absorbed employees and dismissed strong claims about the continued benefits to current government employees under RA 6758.

Appeal to COA Proper

The petitioners elevated their appeal to the COA Proper, which eventually denied the petition for review due to delay in filing and lack of merit. It ruled that the NDs had become final and executory due to procedural lapses by the petitioners and reiterated the absence of legal basis for continued disbursement beyond established guidelines.

Issues Raised

The primary issue for resolution is whether the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the petitioners' appeal regarding the disallowances imposed.

Court's Ruling on Timeliness

The Court acknowledged that the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period. However, it decided to relax procedural rules in light of compelling circumstances, notably the ongoing pandemic, which hindered timely action by the petitioners.

Substantive Analysis and Findings

Upon reviewing substantive issues, the Court found that the COA did not gravely abuse its discretion in affirming the NDs. The authority of the MWSS Board was circumscribed by law under RA 6758, which integrated allowances into salaries and mandated Presidential approval for any additional benefits. The Court reiterated that the illegal continuation of meal allowances constituted an ultra vires act by MWSS officials, thus lacking validity.

Key Legal Principles

The ruling emphasized that former benefits could only be retained by incumbents in positions as of July 1, 1989, and amounts disbursed beyond the approved allowance were deemed excessive. Additionally, the requirement of Presidential approval was highlighted as a safeguard against arbitrary fiscal decisions by public agencies.

Liability of the Petitioners

Regarding liability for the disallowed amounts, the Court clarified the distinction between appr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.