Case Summary (G.R. No. 253199)
Petitioner
Raul F. Macalino, Legal Officer II under a contract of service, who seeks to sustain his compensation despite the COA’s disallowance.
Respondent
Commission on Audit (COA) Proper, which affirmed the regional COA’s decision disallowing payment to Macalino and ordering him (with certain municipal officers) to refund PHP 149,015.00.
Key Dates
– May 2013: Macalino loses vice mayoralty bid.
– July 1, 2013: Contract of service begins.
– March 28, 2014: COA issues Notice of Disallowance (ND No. 14-001-100-(13)).
– November 12, 2014: COA Regional Office No. III Decision affirms ND.
– August 9, 2019: COA Proper denies Macalino’s petition for review.
– January 21, 2020: COA Proper issues Resolution affirming the decision.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Constitution, Article IX-B, Section 6: Prohibits appointment of a losing candidate to government office within one year of election.
– Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), Section 94(b): Mirrors the constitutional prohibition.
– Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memoranda and Resolutions on contracts of service and consultancy.
– COA Circular No. 98-002 (1998): Prohibits LGUs from employing private lawyers without COA concurrence.
Facts
Macalino lost as vice mayor in May 2013. Two months later, Mexico, Pampanga hired him under a contract of service as Legal Officer II at PHP 26,125.00 monthly. He received wages and Personnel Economic Relief Assistance (PERA) totaling PHP 149,015.00. COA disallowed the payments, holding Macalino and certain municipal officers liable for refund.
Procedural History
Macalino appealed to COA Regional Office No. III, which affirmed the disallowance. He then sought review before the COA Proper, which in 2019 denied relief and excluded only the disbursing officer from liability. Macalino filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging these rulings.
Constitutional and Statutory Prohibition on Losing Candidates
Article IX-B, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 94(b) of the Local Government Code unequivocally bar appointment to any government office, GOCC or subsidiary within one year after losing an election. The purpose is to honor the electorate’s rejection and prevent “political lame-duck” appointments.
Plain-Meaning Rule
Both constitutional and statutory text are clear and unambiguous. Under the verba legis principle, words are given their ordinary meaning. No judicial distinction may be read into “any office in the Government,” encompassing contracts of service and consultancy positions.
Applicability of Prohibition to Contractual Engagements
The Constitution and Local Government Code use broad language without exception for contractual or consultancy arrangements. Where the law makes no distinction, courts must not create one. Macalino’s argument that his contract did not require an oath or constitute an “appointment” fails against the plain text.
Civil Service Circulars and Contract Nature
CSC Resolution No. 93-1881 and Memorandum Circular No. 38-1993 exclude bona fide consultants from civil service coverage but forbid contracts of service or job orders for functions pertaining to vacant plantilla positions (CSC MC No. 38, Sec. 4). Macalino’s contract replicates duties of a regular Legal Officer under Section 481 of the Local Government Code, violating CSC Resolution No. 020790 (2002) which bars hiring for vacant plantilla roles via contract of service.
COA Circular and Private Counsel Prohibition
COA Circular No. 98-002 forbids use of public funds to pay private lawyers or law firms for government representation, except in narrow circumstances under Section 481(b)(3)(i) of the LGC. Macalino neither secured the required written concurrence of the Solicitor General/Government Corporate Counsel nor COA, nor did his duties align solely with the limited exception for special legal officers.
Civil Liability and Torreta Guidelines
Under Torreta v. COA, when a Notice of Di
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 253199)
Facts of the Case
- Raul F. Macalino ran and lost as Vice Mayor of San Fernando City, Pampanga, in the May 2013 elections.
- On July 1, 2013, the Municipal Government of Mexico, Pampanga, through Mayor Roy D. Manalastas, entered into a Contract of Service with Macalino to perform duties of Legal Officer II from June 1, 2013 to July 30, 2014, at a monthly salary of ₱26,125.00.
- Macalino received wages and the Personnel Economic Relief Assistance (PERA) totaling ₱149,015.00 for the period July 1 to December 31, 2013.
- On March 28, 2014, the COA Audit Team Leader issued Notice of Disallowance No. 14-001-100-(13), disallowing the payment for violation of Article IX-B, Section 6 of the Constitution and Section 94 of the Local Government Code.
- Eight municipal officers, including Macalino, were cited as liable for return of the disallowed amount; they were given six months to appeal before the disallowance became final and executory.
Procedural History
- Macalino appealed to COA Regional Office No. III. On November 12, 2014, it affirmed the Notice of Disallowance in COA Decision No. 2014-91.
- On March 19, 2015, Macalino filed a petition for review with the COA Commission Proper.
- On August 9, 2019, COA Proper denied the petition in Decision No. 2019-305, affirmed the disallowance, and excluded Disbursing Officer Maritess B. Miranda from liability.
- On January 21, 2020, COA Proper issued Resolution confirming its Decision.
- Macalino filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 253199).
- On November 14, 2023, the Supreme Court rendered the challenged decision.
Issues
- Whether Macalino’s engagement as a Legal Officer II under a Contract of Service violated the one-year prohibition under Article IX-B, Section 6 of the Constitution and Section 94(b) of the Local Government Code.
- Whether a Contract of Service exempts a losing candidate from the constitutional and statutory ban on appointment to any government office within one year of electoral defeat.
- Whether the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discre