ryan hernandez case digest

 [ G.R. NO. 193677, SEPTEMBER 06, 2011 ]

LUCIANO VELOSO, ABRAHAM CABOCHAN, JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION AND MARLON M. LACSON, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

            On December 7, 2000, the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8040 entitled An Ordinance Authorizing the Conferment of Exemplary Public Service Award to Elective Local Officials of Manila Who Have Been Elected for Three (3) Consecutive     Terms in the Same Position. Section 2 thereof provides:

            SEC. 2. The EPSA shall consist of a Plaque of Appreciation, retirement and gratuity pay remuneration equivalent to the actual time served in the position for three (3) consecutive terms, subject to the availability of funds as certified by the City Treasurer. ….xxx…..

            Pursuant to the ordinance, the City made partial payments to some former city councilors including herein petitioners the total amount of P9,923,257.00.

            The Director, Legal and Adjudication Office (LAO)-Local of the COA issued ND No. 06-010-100-05 dated May 24, 2006.

            The COA sustained the Notice of Disallowance

ISSUE:

            (1) Whether the COA has the authority to disallow the disbursement of local government funds

            (2) Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disallowance of P9,923,257.00 covering the EPSA of former three-term councilors of the City of Manila authorized by Ordinance No. 8040.

RULING:

            Under the 1987 Constitution, however, the COA is vested with the authority to determine whether government entities, including LGUs, comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of these funds.

  Thus, LGUs, though granted local fiscal autonomy, are still within the audit jurisdiction of the COA.

However, in line with existing jurisprudence, we need not require the refund of the disallowed amount because all the parties acted in good faith.

 

[ G. R. NO. 156982, SEPTEMBER 08, 2004 ]

NATIONAL AMNESTY COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, JUANITO G. ESPINO, DIRECTOR IV, NCR, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND ERNESTO C. EULALIA, RESIDENT AUDITOR, NATIONAL AMNESTY COMMISSION. RESPONDENTS.

 

FACTS:

 

            Petitioner National Amnesty Commission (NAC) is a government agency created on March 25, 1994 by then President Fidel V. Ramos through Proclamation No. 347. The NAC is tasked to receive, process and review amnesty applications. It is composed of seven members: a Chairperson, three regular members appointed by the President, and the Secretaries of Justice, National Defense and Interior and Local Government as ex officio members.

            It appears that after personally attending the initial NAC meetings, the three ex officio members turned over said responsibility to their representatives who were paid honoraria beginning December 12, 1994. However, on October 15, 1997, NAC resident auditor Eulalia disallowed on audit the payment of honoraria to these representatives amounting to P255,750 for the period December 12, 1994 to June 27, 1997, pursuant to COA Memorandum No. 97-038.

 

ISSUE:

 

            Whether representatives can be entitled to payment intended for ex-officio members

 

RULING:

 

            The representatives in fact assumed their responsibilities not by virtue of a new appointment but by mere designation from the ex officio members who were themselves also designated as such.

            There is a considerable difference between an appointment and designation. An appointment is the selection by the proper authority of an individual who is to exercise the powers and functions of a given office; a designation merely connotes an imposition of additional duties, usually by law, upon a person already in the public service by virtue of an earlier appointment.

            Designation does not entail payment of additional benefits or grant upon the person so designated the right to claim the salary attached to the position. Without an appointment, a designation does not entitle the officer to receive the salary of the position.

 

 

[ G.R. NO. 127515, MAY 10, 2005 ]

RODOLFO DE JESUS, EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO AND REBECCA A. BARBO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 127544]

ANTONIO R. DE VERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR, LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION, IN HIS BEHALF AND OF OTHER LWUA OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

 

FACTS:

 

            Since 1982 officials and employees of the LWUA had been receiving a rice subsidy of P200.00 for every two months pursuant to LWUA Board Resolution No. 05, Series of 1986. The amount was further increased to P350.00 in 1986 pursuant to a series of board resolutions.

            In the interim, then President Corazon Aquino issued Memorandum Order No. 177 (M.O. No. 177), prescribing the policies and guidelines in rationalizing compensation structures in government-owned and/or controlled corporations (GOCCs).

            On July 1, 1989, Congress passed Republic Act No. 6758 (R.A. No. 6758), entitled An Act Prescribing A Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For Other Purposes, commonly known as the Salary Standardization Law. Subject to certain exceptions, Section 12 thereof deemed all allowances to be included in the standardized rates prescribed therein. 

            On October 2, 1989, the DBM issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10), to implement the revised compensation and position classification system prescribed under R.A. No. 6758 for GOCCs and government financial institutions (GFIs). Paragraph 5.5.1 of DBM-CCC No. 10 included a rice subsidy as among the allowances/fringe benefits not likewise integrated into the basic salary and allowed to be continued only for incumbents as of June 30, 1989 but subject to the condition that the grant of the same is with appropriate authorization either from the DBM, Office of the President or legislative issuances.

            The LWUA Corporate Auditor, however, disallowed a series of payrolls intended for the rice allowances for the years 1991 to 1994, citing Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 and its implementing rule, paragraph 5.5 of DBM-CCC No. 10, and the provisions of M.O. No. 177 and DBM-CBC No. 15.

            During the pendency of this case, this Court promulgated De Jesus v. Commission on Audit declaring the ineffectiveness of DBM-CCC No. 10 due to its non-publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the country.

 

ISSUES:

 

            Whether the respondent Commission erred in giving effect to dbm ccc no. 10 dated october 2, 1989 and committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in upholding the disallowance of the rice allowance of lwua officials and employees.

 

 

RULING:

 

            The procedural aspect having been dispensed with, a discussion on the merits is now in order. The petitions are mainly anchored on the theory that DBM-CCC No. 10, upon which the disallowance of the rice subsidy was based, is without force and effect.

            Finding it unnecessary to resolve the issue whether paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 had unduly supplanted the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6758, the Court altogether struck down DBM-CCC No. 10 as ineffective in the absence of the requisite publication in the Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation.

            In the present case under scrutiny, it is decisively clear that DBM-CCC No. 10, which completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional compensation to government officials and employees, starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. It is something more than that. And why not, when it tends to deprive government workers of their allowances and additional compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul together. At the very least, before the said circular under attack may be permitted to substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees concerned should be apprised and alerted by the publication of subject circular in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines – to the end that they be given amplest opportunity to voice out whatever position they may have, and to ventilate their stance on the matter.