Title
Lumayna vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 185001
Decision Date
Sep 25, 2009
Municipal officials challenged COA's disallowance of a 5% salary increase, citing good faith. SC upheld disallowance but exempted refund due to officials' good faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185001)

Procedural Background

The petition for certiorari filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 challenges COA's Decision No. 2005-071 dated December 29, 2005, which affirmed a prior disallowance of a 5% salary increase amounting to P895,891.50 for local government personnel. Petitioners were required to refund this amount based on the argument that their actions exceeded the limitations set under the Local Government Code.

Relevant Legislative Framework

The core laws involved include Republic Act No. 7160, known as the Local Government Code of 1991, and various Local Budget Circulars issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), particularly LBC No. 74, which permitted a 5% salary adjustment, and LBC No. 75, issued later, which provided guidelines on personal service limitations.

Municipal Budget and Salary Increase

On June 15, 2001, DBM authorized a 5% salary increase effective July 1, 2001, leading to the enactment of various resolutions by the Sangguniang Bayan of Mayoyao to implement this increase. However, subsequent actions taken and resolutions passed were scrutinized by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, which positioned the increase within the context of budgetary constraints and compliance with civil service regulations.

COA's Rationale for Disallowance

The COA determined that the municipality had exceeded its personal service expenditure limits as prescribed in Section 325(a) of the Local Government Code. Specifically, findings by the Provincial Budget Officer indicated an over-expenditure of nearly P3,944,568.05 in the annual budget. The COA's decisions emphasized compliance with established salary rates and budgetary limitations without waivers for the salary increases invoked by the municipality’s resolutions.

Petitioners’ Arguments

Petitioners contended that their resolutions were valid local legislative actions, asserting that the municipal budget did not exceed legal limitations for personal service appropriations. They argued a good faith effort by municipal officials, suggesting the budget review process by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan only considered specific provisions and did not encompass the entire salary increase situation.

Court’s Analysis of Good Faith and Procedural Issues

The Supreme Court examined if the petitioners acted in good faith when disbursing the salary increases despite the subsequent disallowance. The Court determined that procedural arguments regarding the timing of motions for reconsideration were moot, given COA’s acceptance of the petitioners' motions without raising issues about timeliness.

Conclusion on Good Faith

In reviewing the proceedings, the Court upheld the COA's findings related to the budgetar

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.