Case Summary (G.R. No. 217285)
Key Dates
The decision under review is dated December 17, 2014. The initial petition was dismissed on April 21, 2015, but was reinstated following a motion for reconsideration on January 12, 2016.
Applicable Law
The case is governed by the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Presidential Decree No. 1445, the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 6657 governing the CARP, and various budget circulars and resolutions that dictate the valid sources for the allocation of CNA incentives.
Background Facts
In 2004, DAR Secretary Rene Villa and DAREA executed a Collective Negotiation Agreement, leading to a total disbursement of P6,598,000.00 as incentives for DAR employees based on performance from 2008 to 2009. However, these incentives were disallowed by COA, which found that the funds were improperly charged to a special fund that should have been dedicated exclusively to its intended purpose under the Agrarian Reform program.
COA Regional Office Ruling
The COA Regional Office No. 2 upheld these disallowances, asserting that the CARP Fund is a special fund and the CNA incentives could not legally be sourced from it. The Office maintained that any savings utilized for such purposes must specifically come from Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) and should not originate from special funds designated for specific programs.
COA Proper Decision
The consolidated decision of the COA Proper affirmed the earlier rulings, ultimately concluding that the DAR officials and employees who authorized the disbursement of the CNA incentives were held jointly liable to return the wrongly disbursed amounts. The COA emphasized the illegality of sourcing the incentives from the CARP Fund, which is to be used strictly for agrarian reform purposes.
Petitioner’s Arguments
DAREA argued that the CNA incentives could be derived from CARP Fund savings based on communications from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) that indicated the CARP Fund’s flexibility regarding operational expenses. DAREA asserted that requiring repayment would be grossly unfair and inequitable given the good faith nature of the recipients.
COA's Counterarguments
The COA countered by stating that the principle of solutio indebiti applies, whereby individuals who received disallowed payments are liable to return those amounts to the government, irrespective of good faith claims. The COA referenced existing laws asserting that receipt of such benefits without legal foundation constitutes unjust enrichment.
Legal Findings
In ruling against the petition, the Court reinforced the prohibition on using agency funds for purposes not explicitly allowed. The Court recognized prior cases that established the illegality of using special funds for employee incentives, stating that any purported savings from a program like CARP cannot be used to justify such incentives when they detract from the primary purpose of supporting agrarian reform.
Participation of Employees
The Court pointed out that DAREA’s claim that its members acted as passiv
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 217285)
Overview of the Case
- The case involves a Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court by the Department of Agrarian Reform Employees Association (DAREA) against the Commission on Audit (COA).
- The petition seeks to reverse COA's Decision No. 2014-388, which upheld several Notices of Disallowance (ND) concerning the illegal disbursement of funds.
- The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition but later reinstated it upon reconsideration.
Background and Facts
- On October 29, 2004, a Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) was executed between the then Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Rene Villa, and DAREA.
- The DAR Regional Office No. 02 (DAR-RO2) disbursed a total of P6,598,000.00 as incentives to its officials and employees for achieving certain targets from 2008 to 2009.
- The disbursements were subsequently flagged as illegal by COA in three separate Notices of Disallowance due to the funds being charged against the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Fund, which is a special fund intended for specific purposes.
COA Audit Findings
- COA's audit team determined that the incentives were improperly funded by the CARP Fund, violating Section 4(3) of Presidential Decree No. 1445, which restricts the use of trust funds.
- The CARP Fund, created under Republic Act No. 6657, serves a specific purpose and should not be utilized for other expenditures.
- DAR-RO2 appealed the findings, arguing that the CARP Fund should be considered a special fund from which t