Title
Small Business Corp. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 251178
Decision Date
Apr 27, 2021
SBC granted salary increases during EO No. 7 moratorium; COA disallowed payments, holding officers and recipients liable for refund. SC upheld COA, citing violation of moratorium and solutio indebiti principle.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 251178)

Facts of the Case

On June 1, 2009, the SBC Board of Directors approved Board Resolution No. 1610, revising its organizational structure, staffing pattern, qualification standards, and salary structure, which was later confirmed by DTI Secretary Peter B. Favila on February 8, 2010. In the context of these developments, Executive Order No. 7 was issued on September 8, 2010, imposing a moratorium on salary increases, allowances, and benefits for government-owned and controlled corporations and government financial institutions, which remained effective unless specifically authorized by the President.

Despite this moratorium, the SBC Board of Directors issued Resolution No. 1863 on October 28, 2011, implementing guidelines for the revised salary structure, allowing step increments based on merit or length of service. Between September 1, 2012, and September 30, 2014, salary increases totaling PHP 4,489,002.09 were approved and disbursed to SBC personnel, which later drew scrutiny from the COA.

COA's Action

In response to the salary increases, the COA issued notices of disallowance in 2014, citing violations of EO No. 7. The disallowed payments became the subject of appeals by SBC on the grounds that the salary increases were approved prior to EO No. 7, alleging that the executive order was retroactively applied.

Ruling of COA Cluster Director and COA Proper

The COA Cluster Director affirmed the disallowances, stating that the salary increases violated EO No. 7. The COA Proper upheld this finding in a decision dated December 29, 2017, reiterating that the increases were implemented during the moratorium period and reaffirming the need for Presidential approval for such salary adjustments.

Issue Before the Court

The primary issue for resolution is whether the COA gravely abused its discretion when it upheld the disallowances concerning salary increases granted by SBC.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled against SBC, asserting that the COA acted within its constitutional mandate to disallow illegal expenditures. The Court noted the clear directives of EO No. 7, highlighting that any salary increases implemented after its issuance were subject to disallowance. The Court emphasized that while the SBC's revised salary structure received prior approval, its actual implementation and payment occurred during the moratorium.

On the Power to Fix Salary Structures

The Court acknowledged the SBC’s authority under RA 6977 to set salary structures, but clarified that such authority is still subject to oversight by the President and applicable laws governing compensation frameworks for GOCCs. It highlighted that the Governance Commission for Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations (GCG), established under RA 10149, is tasked with formulating compensation policies to prevent excessive remuneration packages and that SBC itself recognized this authority when it sought confirmation regarding the salary increases from the GCG.

Related Jurisprudence

The Court also noted that a similar issue had been resolved in the prior case of SBC v. COA (G.R. No. 230628), establishing that salary increa

...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.