Title
Supreme Court
Engineer Alex C. Paguio, et al. vs. Commission on Audit, Nilda M. Blanco, et al.
Case
G.R. No. 242644
Decision Date
Oct 18, 2022
Pagsanjan Water District officials contested COA's disallowance of unauthorized EME payments; Supreme Court upheld COA, mandating refund due to legal violations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 242644)

Applicable Law

The case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, various provisions of the General Appropriations Act for 2009 and 2010, Presidential Decree No. 198, and Republic Act No. 9286, as well as established auditing guidelines and Circular No. 2006-01 issued by the Commission on Audit.

Background of the Case

The Pagsanjan Water District routinely provided Paguio a monthly allowance for Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses, initially set at PHP 13,000 and later increased to PHP 18,000 by Board resolutions. Audits by the COA highlighted that these payments were made without proper approval or compliance with legal and regulatory provisions, leading to a Notice of Disallowance issued on May 10, 2012, for a total of PHP 432,000, which was contested by the officials.

Procedural History

Following the issuance of the Notice of Disallowance, the petitioners appealed to COA’s Regional Office, arguing the legality of receiving the allowances under their authority to fix compensation. The appeal was denied, and upon further petition to the COA Proper, the initial decision was affirmed, asserting that the payments were unauthorized and violated existing laws.

Key Issues

The significant issues raised include whether COA committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the allowances and whether the petitioners are liable for refunding the disallowed amounts. The petitioners asserted that the allowance was validly granted, invoking the authority under Republic Act No. 9286 and claiming good faith in the payments.

Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court determined that the COA’s actions were aligned with its constitutional mandate to audit public funds. The ruling reiterated that the authority to fix the General Manager’s compensation does not extend to allowances that contravene the provisions of the General Appropriations Acts or relevant regulatory guidelines. The argument from petitioners regarding the application of Circular No. 2006-01 was dismissed since the payments did not adhere to the required reimbursement processes or necessary documentation.

Conclusion on Liability

The Court aff

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.