G.R. No. 213330 - Almadovar vs. Pulido-Tan

The petition seeks to reverse the December 29, 2011 Decision and the April 4, 2014 Resolution of the Commission on Audit (COA) regarding Notices of Disallowances (NDs) issued against the Isabela Water District (ISAWAD).
Aleli C. Almadovar, the General Manager of ISAWAD, is the petitioner.
The NDs were issued for various payments made by ISAWAD, including salary increases, legal fees, and allowances, which were deemed without legal basis.

ISAWAD is a government-owned and controlled corporation established under Presidential Decree No. 198, known as the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, amended by Republic Act No. 9286.
On January 25, 2007, the Audit Team Leader issued NDs for payments made by ISAWAD, including:
- Salary increase for the GM without legal basis.
- Legal retainer's fee without proper authority.
- Honorarium to an OGCC lawyer without express authority.
- Representation and Transportation Allowances exceeding authorized rates.

On October 28, 2010, the COA Regional Office affirmed the NDs, stating that the salary increase was improper as it violated the Salary Standardization Law (SSL).
The COA found that the RATA exceeded allowable limits and that the honorarium payments were excessive and without basis.
The disallowed amount for the legal retainer was modified, reducing it due to a valid contract for part of the period.

The COA's December 29, 2011 Decision upheld the Regional Office's ruling, emphasizing the need for written conformity from the OGCC and COA before hiring private lawyers.
The COA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on April 4, 2014, leading to the current petition.

The primary issues are whether the disbursements under the NDs were improper and whether the petitioner is liable to refund the amounts.
The petitioner argues that her salary increase was lawful under R.A. No. 9286 and that she acted in good faith regarding the payments made.

The petitioner contends that local water districts are exempt from the SSL and that her salary was within the authorized scale.
She claims that the payments to Atty. Esguerra were valid due to prior OGCC approval and that the COA's concurrence was not necessary for renewals.
The petitioner asserts that denying payments to the lawyers would result in unjust enrichment and that she acted in good faith.

The COA maintains that local water districts are subject to the SSL and that R.A. No. 9286 did not repeal it.
It argues that the renewal of retainership contracts requires COA's written concurrence and that the payments made to the lawyers were unauthorized.
The COA disputes the petitioner's claim of good faith, stating that she failed to provide sufficient evidence of timely requests for concurrence.

The Court affirms that the salary increase was correctly disallowed as it violated the SSL, which applies to all government positions, including those in GOCCs.
The Court finds no express exemption for water utilities from the SSL in the relevant statutes.

The Court agrees with the COA that the engagement of Atty. Esguerra and Atty. Operario was unauthorized due to the lack of necessary approvals.
The Court emphasizes that the requirement for written concurrence is mandatory for both hiring and renewing contracts with private lawyers.