Title
CastaAeda vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 263014
Decision Date
May 14, 2024
Engr. CastaAeda, Jr. challenged COA's disallowance of allowances and bonuses for SRWD employees. The SC ruled he was liable for unauthorized payments, affirming the COA's decision with modifications regarding employee repayments.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 263014)

Applicable Law

The case primarily pertains to Republic Act No. 6758, the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, particularly Section 12 which deals with the integration of allowances into standardized salary rates. Furthermore, various COA circulars and administrative orders relevant to disallowed benefits and the concept of unjust enrichment were invoked in the proceedings.

The Disallowed Benefits

During the period of January 1 to December 31, 2011, the SRWD Board of Directors authorized the payment of various allowances and bonuses to employees hired after December 31, 1999, totaling PHP 1,727,409.75, as well as PHP 239,000.00 in year-end financial assistance and cash gifts to its board members. However, post-audit findings indicated that these payments lacked a legal basis, leading to the issuance of Notices of Disallowance (ND) Nos. 12-001-101(11) and 12-002-101(11).

COA's Rationale for Disallowance

The COA ruled that the additional allowances and bonuses for employees hired post-December 31, 1999, were already integrated into the basic salaries under Republic Act No. 6758. Additionally, payments to board members required explicit authorization, which was not duly provided, as evidenced by a lack of approval from the President under relevant circulars. The COA partially granted the petition, absolving the employee-recipients from refunding the amounts but maintaining liability for other SRWD officials.

Petitioners' Claims of Good Faith

CastaAeda, Jr. and other officials contended that they acted in good faith, relying on a letter from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) which purportedly authorized the benefits. They argued that their actions were based on established practices and prior decisions, which they believed provided a valid basis for the allowances, thus asserting that they should be excused from refunding the disallowed amounts.

Respondent's Counterarguments

The COA, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, rejected the petitioners' claims of good faith, asserting that their reliance on the DBM letter was misplaced, and emphasized that they failed to adhere to the relevant laws governing public funds. The COA also pointed out that presumption of good faith is negated by gross negligence, which was evident in the approving and certifying officers' neglect of their duty to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.

The Court's Findings

Ultimately, the Court upheld the COA's findings, ruling that the integration of allowances

...continue reading

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