Title
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 246313
Decision Date
Feb 15, 2022
PCSO personnel granted disallowed benefits lacked legal basis; COA upheld disallowance, holding approving officers solidarily liable for repayment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248971)

Factual Background

In November 2010, the PCSO-LPDO authorized several monetary benefits, including a Christmas Bonus equivalent to three months' basic salary, a Weekly Draw Allowance, and various other allowances for employees. However, these payments were subjected to audit, which resulted in several Notices of Disallowance (NDs) issued on December 8, 2010, by an audit team, citing the lack of legal basis since the benefits in question were grounded solely on a Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) and did not have adequate support from applicable laws.

Procedural History

After failing to file a timely appeal against the NDs, PCSO sought reconsideration, which Assistant Commissioner Elizabeth Zosa initially granted, allowing further review. However, the COA Regional Director subsequently upheld the NDs. In an appeal to the COA Proper, the petition was ultimately dismissed, although reconsideration was granted, leading to a decision on the merits that affirmed the disallowance of the benefits.

Ruling of the Commission Proper

On April 7, 2017, the COA Proper published its decision confirming that the PCSO Board does not possess unrestricted authority to fix salaries and benefits. The COA stated that all monetary benefits must comply with pertinent civil service and compensation laws. Additionally, it rejected the petitioners' reliance on a purported post facto approval from the Office of the President, clarifying that such approvals cannot retroactively validate grants that contravene established laws.

Material Issues Presented

The key issues raised by the petitioners included assertions of wrongful dismissal of their review petition based on timeliness, claims of lawful authority to grant the allowances, reliance on post facto presidential approval, and compliance with the principle of non-diminution of benefits. Furthermore, they argued that they acted in good faith as approving officers in issuing the disallowed allowances.

Court's Analysis and Conclusion

The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, emphasizing respect for the COA's authority and expertise in enforcing audit regulations. It found no evidence of grave abuse of discretion in the COA's decisions. The Court reiterated that the PCSO Board’s powers over employee compensation are not absolute, fundamentally governed by existing civil service statutes and regulations. The various allowances, such as the Christmas Bonus and hazard pay, were deemed unlawful due to their integration into standardized salary rates, and without presidential approval, could not be separately dispensed.

Moreover, the Court rejected the petitioners' arguments concerning good faith, det

...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.