G.R. No. 112371 - Domingo vs. Commission on Audit

Case Summary (G.R. No. 112371)

Petitioner

Aida Domingo was appointed Regional Director of DSWD Region V on March 23, 1987 and assumed office. While vehicles were endorsed to her regional office for official use, she continued to claim and received a commutable transportation allowance, asserting entitlement to collect for days she did not actually use an assigned vehicle.

Respondent

The Commission on Audit (through the Regional Auditor and the Commission proper) disallowed the transportation allowance claims on the ground that an official assigned a government vehicle is not entitled to transportation allowance, relying on COA Decision No. 1745 (Feb. 26, 1991) and COA Circular No. 75-6 (Nov. 7, 1975) implementing P.D. No. 733.

Key Dates and Amounts

Appointment as Regional Director: March 23, 1987.
Regional Auditor communication notifying disallowance and requesting cessation of allowance claims: November 14, 1989.
Claimed transportation allowance period: July 1, 1988 to December 31, 1990; total collected: P48,600.00.
Refund made by petitioner: P1,600.00 (for 32 days she acknowledged using a government vehicle).
Auditor denied reconsideration: May 18, 1990; CSB No. 92-003-101 notation dated July 8, 1992 referencing COA Decision No. 1745 (Feb. 26, 1991).
Petitioner appealed to COA: August 8, 1992.
COA decision denying the appeal: August 25, 1993.
Petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court filed: G.R. No. 112371 (Oct. 7, 1998 per docket information); Supreme Court decision affirmed in banc (reported 357 Phil. 842).

Applicable Law and Administrative Directives

Section 28, Republic Act No. 6688 (General Appropriations Act of 1989): the transportation allowance shall not be granted to officials who are assigned a government vehicle or use government motor transportation, except as may be approved by the President; prior inconsistent administrative authorizations are invalid.
Parallel provisions in the General Appropriations Acts of 1988, 1990, and 1991 include substantially similar prohibitions.
Presidential Decree No. 733 and COA Circular No. 75-6 (Nov. 7, 1975) regulate the use of government vehicles; COA Circular No. 75-6 prohibits officials provided with a transportation allowance from using government vehicles operated and maintained from appropriated funds (sectional cross-reference to P.D. 733, sec. 14).
Controlling COA administrative precedent cited: COA Decision No. 1745 (Feb. 26, 1991), and prior judicial treatment in Bustamante v. Commissioner on Audit (216 SCRA 134) holding that an official issued a government vehicle cannot simultaneously claim transportation allowance.

Procedural History

Regional audit reports prompted a directive to cease transportation allowance claims by officials given government vehicles. The petitioner sought reconsideration at the audit level (denied), received an audit charge notation disallowing the account less a refunded amount, then appealed to the COA proper (appeal denied on grounds of controlling COA precedent). Petitioner then filed an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court seeking nullification of the COA decision.

Issue Presented

Whether a government official who has been assigned a government vehicle is nevertheless entitled to claim a commutable transportation allowance for days the official did not actually use the assigned vehicle.

Supreme Court Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission on Audit’s decision. It held that an official assigned a government vehicle is not entitled to claim transportation allowance, regardless of whether the official actually used the vehicle on particular days. The COA disallowance was confirmed and the appealed COA decision was affirmed.

Court’s Reasoning — Statutory Construction and Plain Meaning

The Court relied on the plain and categorical language of the General Appropriations Acts and related administrative issuances. The GAAs use the term “assigned” rather than “used,” and the Court interpreted “assigned” in its ordinary sense to mean that when a vehicle is assigned to an office or official, the prohibition on receiving the transportation allowance applies irrespective of actual day-to-day usage. The Court observed that if the legislature had intended to limit the prohibition only to actual “use” on specific days, it would have employed that word. The Court accepted the Solicitor General’s point that vehicles issued to the regional office, regardless of whether issued to the director personally, were intended for official use by the office and its officials and thus sufficient to trigger the statutory bar.

Court’s Reasoning — Administrative Policy and Avoidance of Undesirable Consequences

The Court emphasized the legislative and administrative policy objective of preventing double compensation — the payment of transportation allowance in addition to providing free government transportation. It invoked the rule that statutes should be construed to avoid mischievous or injurious consequences and held that permitting officials to collect transportation allowance despite the ava

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 112371)

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Original petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner sought nullification of Decision No. 93-3081 of the Commission on Audit (COA).
Case caption and citations: 357 Phil. 842; 95 OG No. 44, 7743 (November 1, 1999) EN BANC; G.R. No. 112371, October 07, 1998.
Decision authored by Justice Purisima and handed down by the Court en banc.

Relevant Antecedent Facts

On March 23, 1987, Aida Domingo was appointed by the President as Regional Director, Region V, Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and she assumed office.
Several government vehicles were thereafter endorsed to the DSWD Regional Office, Region V, for use by personnel of the entire regional office.
Vehicles endorsed included: Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep, Kaiser Cargo Truck, a Trailer Jeep, Willyas Army Rebuilt Jeep, and a Nissan Double Cab.
Despite the assignment of vehicle(s) to her office, petitioner claimed and collected transportation allowance.
Petitioner collected a total of P48,600.00 as transportation allowance for the period July 1, 1988 to December 31, 1990.
Petitioner refunded P1,600.00, which she asserted represented reimbursement for thirty-two (32) days she actually utilized a government vehicle.

Administrative Audit and Initial COA Actions

On November 14, 1989, Regional Auditor Manuel Cabares communicated to petitioner that post-audit reports showed officials provided with government vehicles were still collecting transportation allowances.
The Regional Auditor requested the petitioner, as Regional Director, to instruct all concerned persons to cease collecting the transportation allowances.
Petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing entitlement to commutable transportation allowance for days she did not actually use the government vehicle.
The Regional Auditor denied reconsideration on May 18, 1990, and issued CSB No. 92-003-101 dated July 8, 1992, with notation that a special audit of petitioner’s TA account was disallowed in accordance with COA Decision No. 1745 dated February 26, 1991, less payment made under OR No. 7714009 dated December 6, 1990 (P1,600.00).
Petitioner appealed the auditor’s action to the Commission on Audit on August 8, 1992.

COA Decision and Basis

On August 25, 1993, the Commission on Audit rendered a decision finding petitioner’s appeal devoid of merit and upholding the disallowance.
COA’s decision relied on earlier COA Decision No. 1745 dated February 26, 1991.
COA’s position: a government official assigned a vehicle for his/her official use is not entitled to collect transportation allowance whether or not he/she actually used such vehicle.

Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Cited

Section 28 of Republic Act No. 6688 (General Appropriations Act of 1989) quoted in full as presented:
- The transportation allowance authorized shall not be granted to officials who are assigned a government vehicle or - use government motor transportation, except as may be approved by the President of the Philippines.
- Unless otherwise provided by law, no amount appropriated in this Act shall be used to pay for representation and/or transportation allowances, whether commutable or reimbursable, which exceed the rates authorized under this Section. Previous administrative authorization not consistent with the rates and conditions herein specified shall no longer be valid and payment shall not be allowed.
General Appropriations Acts provisions quoted for other years:
- GAA 1988: “The transportation allowance herein authorized shall not be granted to officials who are assigned a government vehicle or use a government motor transportation, except as may be approved by the President of the Philippines.”
- GAA 1990: “The transportation allowance herein authorized shall not be granted to officials who are assigned a government vehicle or use government transportation, except as may be approved by the President of the Philippines.”
- GAA 1991: “The transportation allowance herein authorized shall not be granted to officials who are assigned a government vehicle or use government motor transportation.”
Presidential Decree No. 733 and Commission on Audit Circular No. 75-6 dated November 7, 1975, regulating the use of government vehicles, aircrafts and watercrafts, were identified as bases for the GAA provision.
Portion of COA Circular No. 75-6 quoted: VI. Prohibition Against Use of Government Vehicles by Officials provided with transportation allowance - “No official who has been furnished motor corporation allow