Rebecca Barbo v
Commission on Audit (October 10, 2008)
FACTS:
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 December 4,
1995 and February 12 1996, the LWUA Board of Trustees issued Board Resolution
No. 313, Series of 1995 and Board Resolution No. 39, Series of 1996 respectively. These Board Resolutions authorized the Board of Directors
of SFWD to receive reimbursable allowances in the form of Representation and
Transportation Allowance (RATA), Travel Allowance, and Extraordinary &
Miscellaneous Expense (EME); Christmas Bonus; Uniform Allowance; Rice
Allowance; Medical and Dental Benefits; and Productivity Incentive Bonus.
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 June 30, 1997,
a Special Audit Team of COA Regional Office No. III at San Fernando, Pampanga
audited the financial accounts of SFWD for the period covering January 1, 1994
to July 15, 1996. The COA Special Audit Team disallowed the payment of the
above-mentioned benefits and allowances received by petitioners after the same
were found to be excessive and contrary to Sections 228, 162 and 163 of the
Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM) and to Civil Service
Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 954073 in relation to Section 13 of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 198 (Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973) as
amended. Petitioner were directed to refund the benefits and allowances subject
to the disallowance.
Petitioners
contend that the COA lacks jurisdiction to declare whether or not LWUA Board
Resolution Nos. 313 and 39 are consistent with Section 13 of PD No. 198, as
amended, on matters pertaining to the compensation and "other
benefits" of the Directors of the LWD. This is allegedly the function of
the courts.
The Regional
Director affirmed the disallowance. Petitioners elevated the matter to COA. COA
declared that the subject bonuses and allowances received by petitioners
constituted additional compensation or remuneration. Petitioners' motion for
reconsideration was denied. Hence this instant petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether respondent has the jurisdiction to motu proprio declare
LWUA Board Resolution No. 313, S. 1995, as amended by Resolution No. 39, S.
1996, to bbe totally in conflict with Sec. 13 of PD No. 198 as amended.
2. Whether Sec 13, PD 198, as amended, prohibiting petitioners'
entitlement to RATA, EME, Bonuses and Other Benefits and Allowances.
HELD:
The
Court has already settled this issue in a myriad of cases. Particularly,
in Rodolfo S. de Jesus [Catbalogan Water District] v. COA,
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 the Court declared that it is the mandate of the
COA to audit all government agencies, including government-owned and controlled
corporations with original charters. Indeed, the Constitution specifically
vests in the COA the authority to determine whether government entities comply
with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow
illegal or irregular disbursements of government funds. This
independent constitutional body is tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in
safeguarding the proper use of the government's, and ultimately the people's,
property.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment