Rebecca Barbo vs Commission on Audit (October 10, 2008)

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.

Hannah Eunice D. Serana vs. Sandiganbayan

HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA v SANDIGANBAYAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

G.R. No. 162059, January 22, 2008

Nature: Petition for certiorari assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, Fifth Division, denying petitioners motion to quash the information and her motion for reconsideration.

Keyword: ESTAFA, Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan

Facts: Hannah Serana was appointed by former President Estrada as a student regent of UP Cebu, to serve a one-year term. President Estrada gave P15,000,000.00 to the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to materialize. The Ombudsman filed estafa case against her before the Sandiganbayan. She moved to quash the information. She claimed that the Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent because the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa; the petitioner is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27; the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office; and the funds in question personally came from President Estrada, not from the government. As to jurisdiction over her person, she contends that as a UP student regent, she is not a public officer who held the position in an ex officio capacity.

Issue:  Whether the petitioner can be charged of estafa in the Sandiganbayan?

Ruling:

Petitioner can be charged of estafa as provided in Section 4(B) of P.D.  No.  1606. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office.  Also the Sandiganbayan see no plausible or sensible reason to exclude estafa as one of the offenses included in Section 4(bB) of P.D.  No.  1606.  Plainly, estafa is one of those other felonies.  The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin requirements that (a) the offense is committed by public officials and employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D.  No.  1606, as amended, and that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.

As to the issue of whether or not petitioner is a public officer. It was held in Laurel vs Desierto, that public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercise by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.

Since BOR performs functions similar to those of a board of trustees of a non-stock corporation. By express mandate of law, petitioner is a public officer as contemplated by P.D. No. 1606 the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It is well established that compensation is not an essential element of public office. At most, it is merely incidental to the public office. Hence, Petitioner is a public officer by express mandate of P.D.No. 1606 and jurisprudence.