socorro lim digest

                        

G.R. No. 143596, December 11, 2003

JUDGE TOMAS C. LEYNES, petitioner,

vs.
THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), HON. GREGORIA S. ONG, DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and HON. SALVACION DALISAY, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, respondents.

Facts:

      Petitioner Judge Tomas C. Leynes, is the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40. His salary and representation and transportation allowance (RATA) were drawn from the budget of the Supreme Court. Besides that, petitioner also received a monthly allowance of P944 from the local funds of the Municipality of Naujan starting 1984.

      On May 7, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan unanimously approved a resolution increasing petitioner judge’s monthly allowance from P944 to P1,600 (an increase of P656) starting May 1993. This supplemental budget was approved by the municipal government (the Municipal Mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan) and was also likewise approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Office of Provincial Budget and Management of Oriental Mindoro.

      On February 17, 1994, Provincial Auditor Salvacion M. Dalisay sent a letter to the Municipal Mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan directing them to stop the payment of the P1,600 monthly allowance or RATA to petitioner judge and to require the immediate refund of the amounts previously paid to the latter. She reasoned that the Municipality of Naujan could not grant RATA to petitioner judge in addition to the RATA the latter was already receiving from the Supreme Court. Petitioner judge appealed the matter to COA Regional Director Gregoria S. Ong who, however, upheld the opinion of Provincial Auditor Dalisay.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the Municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro can validly provide RATA to its Municipal Judge, in addition to that provided by the Supreme Court.

Ruling:

Yes. Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, provides:

“(a) The sangguniang bayan, as the legislative body of the municipality, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants . . ., and shall:

(1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective municipal government, and in this connection shall:

x x x

(xi) When the finances of the municipal government allow, provide for additional allowances and other benefits to judges, prosecutors, public elementary and high school teachers, and other national government officials stationed in or assigned to the municipality; (emphasis supplied)”

Respondent COA, however, contends that the above section has been repealed, modified or amended by NCC No. 67, RA 7645 (the General Appropriations Act of 1993) and LBC No. 53. A review of the two laws, however, shows that this was not so. Section 36 of RA 7645 merely provided for the different rates of RATA payable to national government officials or employees, depending on their position, and stated that these amounts were payable from the programmed appropriations of the parent agencies to which the concerned national officials or employees belonged. Furthermore, there was no other provision in RA 7645 from which a repeal of Section 447(a) (l)(xi) of RA 7160 could be implied. In the absence, therefore, of any clear repeal of Section 447(a)(l)(xi) of RA 7160, it cannot be presume to be such intention on the part of the legislature.

The NCC No. 67 on the other hand, seeks to prevent the dual collection of RATA by a national official from the budgets of more than one national agency. It is in fact an administrative tool of the DBM to prevent the much-abused practice of multiple allowances, thus standardizing the grant of RATA by national agencies. It was issued primarily to make the grant of RATA to national officials under the national budget uniform. In other words, it applies only to the national funds administered by the DBM, not the local funds of LGUs.

Now, though LBC No. 53 of the DBM may be considered within the ambit of the President's power of general supervision over LGUs, the SC ruled that Section 3, paragraph (e) thereof is invalid. RA 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, clearly provides that provincial, city and municipal governments may grant allowances to judges as long as their finances allow. Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53, by outrightly prohibiting LGUs from granting allowances to judges whenever such allowances are (1) also granted by the national government or (2) similar to the allowances granted by the national government, violates Section 447(a)(l)(xi) of the Local Government Code of 1991. As already stated, a circular must conform to the law it seeks to implement and should not modify or amend it. Moreover, by prohibiting LGUs from granting allowances similar to the allowances granted by the national government, Section 3 (e) of LBC No. 53 practically prohibits LGUs from granting allowances to judges and, in effect, totally nullifies their statutory power to do so. Being unduly restrictive therefore of the statutory power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges and being violative of their autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution, Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53 is hereby declared null and void.

CASE DIGEST NO. 2

Case title:           

G.R. No. 150769, August 31, 2004

           

KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (KMG), petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE, in his capacity as Chairman, Commission on Audit, RAUL C. FLORES , in his capacity as Commissioner, Commission on Audit, and the RESIDENT AUDITOR OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondents.

Facts:

The Secretary of Health granted the request for payment of hazard pay, subsistence and laundry allowances under R.A. No. 7305 otherwise known as the “Magna Carta for Public Health Workers,” to the Social Insurance Group (SIG) personnel of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). However on a later date, GSIS Resident Auditor Ma. Cristina D. Dimagiba (Dimagiba) issued a notice of disallowance regarding the payment of allowances under R.A. No. 7305 for January 1998 to the SIG personnel. The retroactive disallowance was made in accordance with an earlier letter from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), stating that employees belonging to the SIG are not considered as “health-related workers” and are therefore not qualified to receive hazard pay under R.A. No. 7305. The KMG, the recognized employees’ union in the GSIS, appealed the disallowance of allowances under R.A. No. 7305 to the SIG personnel to the COA. However the COA rendered a decision affirming the disallowance of allowances under R.A. No. 7305 for the SIG personnel.

Issue/s:

Whether or not the Commission on Audit committed grave abuse of discretion, in disallowing the grant of hazard pay benefits to the members of KMG belonging to the Social Insurance Group (SIG).

Ruling:

No. There is likewise no merit in the KMG’s contention that the COA gravely abused its discretion in disallowing the grant of hazard pay to the SIG personnel because it is the DOH which is mandated by law to make the determination as to who are entitled to the benefits under R.A. No. 7305. And although it is the DOH which principally determines who are specifically entitled to benefits under R.A. No. 7305, its authority to make such determination must be in accordance with the definition of terms and standards set in the law and its Implementing Rules. Moreover, there is nothing in the law which precludes review of the DOH’s determinations by other government agencies such as the DBM and the COA in the performance of their respective functions.

The COA, is vested by the Constitution with the power and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds or property owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to government owned and controlled corporations with original charters such as the GSIS, on a post- audit basis. It is mandated to determine whether government entities comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of government funds. Thus, it acted pursuant to its duty and within the bounds of its jurisdiction in reviewing the grant of hazard pay to the SIG personnel under R.A. No. 7305 and subsequently disallowing the same for being violative of the provisions thereof.

CASE DIGEST NO. 3

Case title:      

G.R. No. 174730-37, February 9, 2011

                        

ROSALIO S. GALEOS, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

G.R. No. 174845-52

                        

PAULINO S. ONG, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts:

      Ong was elected Mayor of the Municipality of Naga, Cebu in 1988 and served as such until 1998. On June 1, 1994, he extended permanent appointments to Rosalio S. Galeos (Galeos) and Federico T. Rivera (Rivera) for the positions of Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber I, respectively, in the Office of the Municipal Engineer. Prior to their permanent appointment, Galeos and Rivera were casual employees of the municipal government.

      In their individual Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the years 1993 to 1996, Galeos and Rivera either answered a "No" or an "n/a" to the question: "To the best of your knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or of affinity to anyone working in the government?" and on the space for the list of the names of relatives referred to in the said query. There was even a time that the question was left blank. Ong's signature appears in all the foregoing documents as the person who administered the oath when Galeos and Rivera executed the foregoing documents.

      On October 1, 1998, the members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naga, Cebu filed a letter-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)-Visayas against Ong (then incumbent Vice-Mayor of Naga), Galeos and Rivera for dishonesty, nepotism, violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for the crime of falsification of public documents. On a later year, Ombudsman Aniano Desierto approved the recommendation of OIC-Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas that criminal charges be filed against Ong, Galeos and Rivera for falsification of public documents. The informations that were filed against the petitioners charged them with violating the provision of R.A. 7160 particularly Section 79 on nepotism. It is alleged there that with intent to falsify they, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public document the accused, Galeos, made it appear therein that they are not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, when in truth and in fact he was related to Ong within the fourth degree of consanguinity, since the mother of accused Galeos is the sister of the mother of accused Ong. While accused Rivera made it appear therein that he has no relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity working in the government, when he is related to accused Ong within the fourth degree of affinity, since the mother of Rivera's wife being the sister of the mother of Ong.

Issue/s:

1.     Whether or not the petitioners’ lack of knowledge of their relationship at the time of the execution of the public document could exempt them from the criminal liability of falsification of public documents.

2.     Whether the appointment of Galeos and Rivera by Ong is within the scope of the ban on nepotism.

Ruling:

1.          No. Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, includes making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The elements of falsification in the said provision are as follows: (a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. In addition to the afore-cited elements, it must also be proven that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.

     Since petitioner Galeos answered "No" to the question in his 1993 SALN if he has relatives in the government service within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he made an untruthful statement therein as in fact he was related to Ong, who was then the municipal mayor, within the fourth degree of consanguinity, he and Ong being first cousins (their mothers are sisters). As to his 1994, 1995 and 1996 SALN, Galeos left in blank the boxes for the answer to the similar query. In Dela Cruz v. Mudlong, it was held that one is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position. By withholding information on his relative/s in the government service as required in the SALN, Galeos was guilty of falsification considering that the disclosure of such relationship with then Municipal Mayor Ong would have resulted in the disapproval of his permanent appointment

2.          Yes. The nepotism rule covers all kinds of appointments whether original, promotional, transfer and reemployment regardless of status including casuals and contractuals except consultants.As chief executive and the proper appointing authority, Ong is deemed to have issued the certification recommending to the CSC approval of Galeos' appointment although he admitted only the authenticity and due execution of said certification. Since Ong was duty bound to observe the prohibition on nepotistic appointments, his certification stating compliance with Section 79 of R.A. No. 7160 constitutes a solemn affirmation of the fact that the appointee is not related to him within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. Having executed the certification despite his knowledge that he and Rivera were related to each other within the fourth degree of affinity, as in fact Rivera was his cousin-in-law because the mother of Rivera's wife is the sister of Ong's mother, Ong was guilty of falsification of public document by making untruthful statement in a narration of facts. He also took advantage of his official position as the appointing authority who, under the Civil Service rules, is required to issue such certification.

            Although herein petitioners were prosecuted for the criminal offense of falsification of public document, it becomes obvious that the requirement of disclosure of relationship to the appointing power in the local government units simply aims to ensure strict enforcement of the prohibition against nepotism.