Case Summary (G.R. No. L-36769)
Background of the Expenses
In October 2007, the PhilHealth BOD approved Board Resolution No. 1055, which allowed its members to receive monthly Board Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expense (BEME) reimbursements of ₱30,000. This resolution aimed to cover necessary expenses incurred during the performance of official duties. It was further amended in December 2007 through Board Resolution No. 1084, allowing unexpended BEME balances to be carried over to succeeding months. Additionally, a resolution dated February 12, 2009, allocated ₱4,320,000.00 from the 2009 Corporate Operating Budget for BOD expenses outside board meetings.
COA's Audit Findings
On May 24, 2011, the COA issued an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM), highlighting irregularities in the reimbursement of EME, with a total of approximately ₱19.95 million in 2010 charged under IME and Committee Meeting Expenses accounts. The COA noted that reimbursements exceeded the General Appropriations Act (GAA) prescribed limits and were charged against other accounts, violating budgetary controls as stipulated in the GAA and COA Circular No. 2006-01.
Issuance of Notice of Disallowance
Consequently, Notice of Disallowance No. HO 12-004(10) was issued on July 18, 2012, disallowing IME payments for lack of legal basis, which prompted PhilHealth to file an appeal that was ultimately denied by the COA-Corporate Government Sector (CGS). The COA held that Section 18(d) of Republic Act (RA) No. 7875 explicitly stated that per diem was intended as compensation for BOD members, with no authorization for additional allowances.
PhilHealth's Appeal and Arguments
PhilHealth contended that the COA-CGS misinterpreted legal provisions, arguing instead that the term “month” under the COA’s rules should encompass a period of 30 days rather than the strict notation of six months equating to 180 days. However, the Supreme Court noted that the COA correctly calculated the procedural deadlines, ruling that PhilHealth’s appeal was filed after the allowable reglementary period.
Merits of the Appeal
Even if the court were to consider the merits of PhilHealth’s case, the Court found no legal authority permitting the payment of IME to BOD members in light of prevailing statutes. It distinguished between appointive and ex officio members, asserting that only appointive members could receive per diem payments and emphasizing that ex officio members, holding public positions, do not have a right to additional compensation due to existing regulations pertaining to double compensation and prohibitive allowances.
Findings on Ex Officio Members
The Court noted that ex officio members were already compensated through their governmental roles, effectively negating any additional allowances from PhilHealth. Furthermore, PhilHealth’s reference to Department of Budget and Management Circular No. 2007-510 was deemed irrelevant as it only allows reimbursements within GAA provisions.
Legislative Limitations and Constitutional Provision
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-36769)
Background of the Case
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) against the Commission on Audit (COA) and its officials.
- The petition seeks to annul and set aside COA's Decision No. 2015-093 and Resolution dated December 15, 2015, which affirmed the disallowance of Institutional Meeting Expenses (IME) paid to PhilHealth's Board of Directors (BOD) totaling P2,965,428.59 for the year 2010.
- The context of the case includes several Board Resolutions regarding the allowances and reimbursements for BOD members in performing their official functions.
Relevant Resolutions and Budget Allocations
- In October 2007, PhilHealth's BOD approved Board Resolution No. 1055, entitling members to a monthly reimbursable amount of P30,000 for Board Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (BEME).
- A supplemental budget of P1,560,000 was appropriated for this purpose.
- Subsequent amendments and resolutions allowed for the carryover of unexpended balances and set further allocations for reimbursements from the operating budget.
Audit Observation and Disallowance
- An Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) issued by the COA's Supervising Auditor in May 2011 highlighted that reimbursements of P19.95 million in EME for 2010 were irregularly charged to other accounts.
- The AOM indicated that these charges exceeded the limitations set by the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
- A Notice of Disallowance (ND) was issued on July 18, 2012, disallowing IME payments for lack of legal basis, leading to PhilHealth's appeal to COA-Corporate Government Sector (CGS).
COA-CGS Ruling
- The COA-CGS upheld