CASE DIGEST
Ancheta v. Commission
on Audit
G.R. No. 236725, [February 2, 2021]
EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V
Powers of COA;Commission on Audit Notice of Disallowances; petition for Review; Employees of GOCC
The overarching rule is that all allowances are deemed included in the standardized salary rate, unless excluded by law or by a DBM issuance. This rule is premised upon the distinct policy to eliminate multiple allowances and other incentive packages, resulting in differences of compensation among government personnel.
The case involves the disallowance of benefits amounting to P3,354,123.50 granted by the Special Water District (SWD) in 2010. These benefits, including rice allowance, medical allowance, Christmas groceries, year-end financial assistance, mid-year bonus, and year-end bonus for its Board of Directors, were disallowed because they violated Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Corporate Compensation Circular (CCC) No. 10, which specified that additional allowances should only be given to incumbents as of June 30, 1989. Considering that the SWD Officers and Employees, who are actually receiving such benefits were employed after June 30, 1989, the COA concluded that the grants were unauthorized.
SWD, a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), was organized under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 198. The disallowance was challenged through appeals, first to the COA Regional Office No. 3 (COA-RO3), then to the COA Proper. Both the COA-RO3 and COA Proper affirmed the disallowance. Ancheta, the General Manager of SWD, along with other responsible parties, appealed to the Supreme Court. Petitioners insisted that the disbursements were authorized by DBM Secretary Diokno’s Letter dated November 8, 2000 addressed to certain local water district.
Whether SWD was already covered by RA
No. 6758 when the 2010 benefits were granted.
YES.
The Supreme Court clarified that SWD, being a GOCC created under PD No. 198,
was covered by RA No. 6758 starting from its creation in 1973. Under RA 6758,
all allowances are deemed included in the standardized salary rate, unless
excluded by law or by a DB Issuance. The Court emphasized that the coverage of
RA No. 6758 applies to all positions, including those in GOCCs. This rule was
premised upon the policy to eliminate multiple allowances and other incentive
packages, resulting in differences of compensation among government personnel.
Whether the disallowance of the 2010 benefits was
proper.
YES.
The Court determined that the disallowance of benefits was proper, emphasizing
that Section 12 of RA No. 6758 and DBM CCC No. 10 limit additional allowances
to incumbents as of June 30, 1989. The Court rejected SWD's argument that DBM
Letters authorized the benefits, stating that these letters could not override
the law and that the benefits were unauthorized and appropriately disallowed.
Whether petitioners should be held liable for the
refund of the disallowed amount
YES.
The Court affirmed the COA's decision on the liability of Ancheta and Rapsing,
the approving and certifying officers. It held that they were not acting in
good faith or with diligence, as they neglected SWD's charter requirements and
existing case laws that settled the application of Section 12 of RA No. 6758.
The Court emphasized that good faith and diligence could absolve public
officers from liability, but Ancheta and Rapsing's actions demonstrated a lack
of due diligence. The Court further clarified that their liability should be
limited to the "net disallowed amounts," excluding amounts
already retained by other recipients who were absolved from liability. In conclusion, the Supreme Court
affirmed the COA's decision with modifications, holding Ancheta and Rapsing
solidarily liable to return only the "net disallowed amounts."
No comments:
Post a Comment