Case Summary (G.R. No. 157542)
Applicable Law
The primary legal framework governing this case is Presidential Decree No. 198 (PD 198), as amended, which defines the compensation structure for members of the board of water districts. Furthermore, the case also references the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) Resolution No. 954073 and the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM) in the context of allowable compensation for water district officials.
Background of Benefits Received
Between 1994 and 1996, the petitioners received allowances and benefits authorized under LWUA's Board Resolutions Nos. 313 and 39 concerning representation and transportation allowances (RATA), extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (EME), and bonuses. However, a Special Audit Team from COA audited the SFWD and subsequently found these allowances to be excessive and in violation of the stipulated provisions of law. Thus, the allowances received by the petitioners were disallowed, resulting in an order to refund the financial benefits.
COA's Initial Findings
Upon the COA's investigation, it was determined that the benefits and allowances received by petitioners were in violation of Sections 162 and 163 of the GAAM and in line with CSC Resolution No. 954073, which states that officers of the LWUA cannot receive additional or indirect compensation beyond what is legally permitted. The COA affirmed these findings in its Decision No. 2000-133 and a subsequent resolution in 2003, explicitly stating that the allowances constituted illegal additional compensation.
Arguments Presented by Petitioners
In response to the COA's findings, the petitioners raised several arguments in their appeal, claiming jurisdictional overreach by the COA and asserting that the allowances did not equate to compensation as defined under PD 198. They contended that the DBM rather than the COA should decide on matters relating to compensation. They also pointed out their good faith belief in the legality of the received allowances based on Board Resolutions from LWUA.
COA's Reaffirmation of Decision
The COA maintained that it possessed jurisdiction to assess financial disbursements of government entities, including water districts, and that it had the authority to determine unlawful expenditures. Citing precedents, the COA highlighted that the payments received by the petitioners were indeed additional compensation, explicitly prohibited by Section 13 of PD 198, which only allows per diem payments for directors’ service.
Court’s Conclusion on Jurisdiction
The Court reaffirmed the COA’s jurisdiction to disallow expenditures that do not comply with existing laws and regulations. It stated that although water districts are created under special laws and the discretion of bodies like the LWUA may seem apparent, such discretion is limited by the enforceable laws. Specifically, it emphasized that the clear prohibition of additional compensation under PD 198 restricts any form of discretionary allowance, thus underscoring the COA’s mandate to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 157542)
Case Overview
- This case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioners Rebecca A. Barbo, Eleonora R. de Jesus, and Antonio B. Magtibay against the Commission on Audit (COA).
- The petitioners are officials of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and members of the Interim Board of Directors of the San Fernando Water District (SFWD).
- The petition seeks to annul COA Decision No. 2000-133 dated May 16, 2000, and Resolution dated February 27, 2003, which upheld a Notice of Disallowance (No. 97-004) issued against the petitioners for receiving certain allowances and benefits.
Background of the Case
- The LWUA Board of Trustees passed Board Resolution Nos. 313 (1995) and 39 (1996), allowing the SFWD Board of Directors to receive various allowances and benefits.
- Benefits received by petitioners included Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), Travel Allowance, Extraordinary & Miscellaneous Expenses (EME), Christmas Bonus, Uniform Allowance, Rice Allowance, Medical and Dental Benefits, and Productivity Incentive Bonus.
- A COA Special Audit Team conducted an audit from January 1, 1994, to July 15, 1996, and disallowed the payment of these benefits, deeming them excessive and contrary to established regulations.
Legal Findings and COA’s Decision
- The COA determined that the benefits received were in violation of Sections 228, 162, and 163 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM) and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 954073.
- The COA's Regional Director