Republic of the
Supreme Court
---
EN BANC
|
REBECCA A. BARBO, ELEONORA R. DE JESUS, and ANTONIO
B. MAGTIBAY, Petitioners, - versus - COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 157542
Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA,* CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: October 10, 2008 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
*
On Official Leave as per Special Order No. 520
By this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules
of Court petitioners seek to annul or reverse
Petitioners
are officials of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and designated
members of the Interim Board of Directors of the San Fernando Water District
(SFWD).
On
Pursuant to the said Board Resolutions, petitioners
received EME, Rice Allowance, Christmas Bonus, and Productivity Bonus from SFWD
during the calendar years starting 1994 until 1996.
On
Petitioners
appealed to the
1.
That CSC Resolution No. 954073 issued in Cruz v. Cabili cannot extend to
appellants, they not having been made parties to the case;
2.
That it applied to appellants, said resolution
will partake the nature of an implementing rule and regulation which is beyond
CSC’s jurisdiction to issue;
3.
That DBM, not CSC, is the appropriate authority
to rule on compensation;
4.
That Christmas Bonus, Productivity Bonus, Rice
Allowance, and Uniform Allowance are not compensation;
5.
That Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses
are not compensation but reimbursement of expenses; and
6.
That the right of water district directors and
the interim general manager to receive allowances and other benefits is
appropriately recognized by LWUA.
The
Regional Director, in his First Indorsement dated June 5, 1998, affirmed the
Special Audit Team’s Notice of Disallowance No. 97-004 (94, 95, 96). The Regional Director declared that the
From
the denial of their appeal by the
In
the herein challenged Decision dated
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant Petition for Review of Mr.
Simplicio Belisario, et al. [herein petitioners included], is hereby
denied. Accordingly, the subject
disallowances are affirmed with all officers and employees who received the
bonuses and allowances liable for their settlement together with the officers
named in the Notice of Disallowance, namely: Mr. Dionisio Polintan, General
Manager, Ms. Merlita Garcia, Finance Officer, and Ms. Arsenia Sicat, Cashier /
Property Management Supervisor. (Words
in brackets ours)
Petitioners’
motion for reconsideration was denied by the
Thus,
petitioners now come to this Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
I.
WHETHER OR NOT
II.
WHETHER OR NOT SEC. 13, PD NO. 198, AS
III.
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE TO SETTLE
/ REFUND THE DISALLOWED ALLOWANCES, BO
The
petition is partly meritorious.
Petitioners
contend that the
The Court has already settled this issue in
a myriad of cases.[9] Particularly,
in Rodolfo S. de Jesus [Catbalogan Water
District] v. COA,[10] the
Court upheld the authority and jurisdiction of the COA to rule on the legality
of the disbursement of government funds by a water district and declared that such
power does not conflict with the jurisdiction of the courts, the DBM, and the
LWUA. Citing Section 2, Subdivision D,
Article IX of the 1987 Constitution[11] the
Court declared that it is the mandate of the
Anent the second issue, a water district is
a government-owned and controlled corporation with a special charter since it
is created pursuant to a special law, Presidential Decree (PD) 198. It is undeniable that PD 198 expressly prohibits
the grant of RATA, EME, and bonuses to members of the board of Water Districts.
Section 13 of PD 198, as amended, reads as follows:
Compensation.
- Each director shall receive a per diem, to be determined by the board, for
each meeting of the board actually attended by him, but no director shall
receive per diems in any given month in excess of the equivalent of the total
per diems of four meetings in any given month.
No director shall receive other compensation for services to the
district.
Any
per diem in excess of P50 shall be subject to approval of the
Administration.
In Baybay
Water District v. Commission on Audit,[14]
the members of the board of Baybay Water District also questioned the
disallowance by the
xxx Under §13 of this Decree, per diem is precisely intended to be the
compensation of members of board of directors of water districts. Indeed, words
and phrases in a statute must be given their natural, ordinary, and
commonly-accepted meaning, due regard being given to the context in which the
words and phrases are used. By
specifying the compensation which a director is entitled to receive and by
limiting the amount he/she is allowed to receive in a month, and, in the same
paragraph, providing “No director shall receive other compensation” than the
amount provided for per diems, the law quite clearly indicates that directors
of water districts are authorized to receive only the per diem authorized by
law and no other compensation or allowance in whatever form.
Section 13 of PD 198 is clear enough that
it needs no interpretation. It expressly
prohibits the grant of compensation other than the payment of per diem, thus preempting the exercise
of any discretion by water districts in paying other allowances and bonuses.
Lastly,
the petitioners claim that they are not liable to settle or refund the
disallowed payments of benefits and allowances which they have received in good
faith and as de jure officers of
SFWD.
While we sustain the
disallowance of the above benefits by respondent
Considering, however, that all the parties here acted in
good faith, we cannot countenance the refund of subject incentive benefits for
the year 1992, which amounts the petitioners have already received.
Indeed, no indicia of bad faith can be detected under the attendant facts and
circumstances. The officials and chiefs of offices concerned
disbursed such incentive benefits in the honest belief that the amounts given
were due to the recipients and the latter accept the same with gratitude,
confident that they richly deserve such benefits.
x x x. Petitioners here
received the additional allowances and bonuses in good faith under the honest
belief that LWUA Board Resolution No. 313 authorized such payment.
At the time petitioners received the additional allowances and bonuses, the
Court had not yet decided Baybay Water District. Petitioners had no
knowledge that such payment was without legal basis. Thus, being in
good faith, petitioners need not refund the allowances and bonuses they received
but disallowed by the
The foregoing disquisitions were also applied
to the more recent cases of De Jesus [Metro Cariaga Water District];[17] Molen
[Metro Iloilo Water District]; and Magno [Mangaldan Water District].[18] The same reasoning and conclusions of the
Court were reiterated in de Jesus v. CSC[19] and
Cabili and de Vera v. CSC.[20] We find no reason to depart from the rulings
in these cases which essentially involve the same issues as the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is
hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO
A. QUISU
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
|
(On Official Leave) RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZC Associate Justice
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA Associate
Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate
Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 20-24.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Policy Guidelines on Compensation and Other Benefits to WD Board of Directors; Amendments to LWUA Board Resolution No. 313, id. at 50-59.
[6] Rollo, p. 34.
[7]
[8] No. L-26608,
[9] Baybay Water District v.
[10] Supra,
note 9.
[11] Sec. 2(1). The Commission on Audit shall have the power,
authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to
the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property,
owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to the Government, or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned and
controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post audit basis: (a)
constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal
autonomy under this constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and state
universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or
equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the government, which are
required by law or the granting institution to submit such audit as a condition
of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal control system of the audited
agencies is inadequate, the Commission may adopt such measures, including
temporary or special preaudit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the
deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the government and, for
such period as may be provided by law, preserve the vouchers and other
supporting papers pertaining thereto.
(2) The Commission shall have exclusive
authority, subject to the limitations in this article, to define the scope of
its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required
therefore, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations,
including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary,
excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government
funds and properties.
[12] National
Electrification Administration v.
[13] Rodolfo S. de Jesus [Catbalogan Water
District] v. COA, supra., note 9. Citing Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 92585,
[14] Supra, note 9.
[15] G.R. No. 142347,
[16] G.R. No. 159299, July 7, 2004, 433
SCRA 769, 773, citing De Jesus v.
Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 149154, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 666, 676.
[17] Supra, note 9.
[18]
[19]
[20]