De Jesus Vs COA - Digest

RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, PRIMO T.
LOMIBAO and ALICE MARIE

C. OSORIO, Petitioners vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent
G. R. No. 156641
February 5, 2004
FACTS:
In 1996, pursuant to Resolution No. 313, series of 1995, of the Local Water Utilities Administration
(LWUA), the petitioners granted to themselves Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), rice
allowance, clothing allowance, Christmas Bonus, productivity pay and honorarium.
In the post-audit of Metro Cariaga Water Districts accounts, said allowances and bonuses to
petitioners were disallowed, applying COA Opinion No. 97-015 dated August 7, 1997, which declared that
LWUA Resolution No. 313 series of 1995, is contrary to Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 198
(otherwise known as the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973) which unequivocally prohibits local water
district board members from receiving compensation in excess of the allowed per diems.
ISSUES:
1. whether the COA has jurisdiction to declare LWUA Resolution No. 313 series of 1995,
contrary to the provisions of Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 198;
2. whether Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 198 prohibits the payment to petitioners of
compensation and allowances in excess of the allowed per diems; and
3. whether petitioners should refund the disallowed disbursements.
RULINGS:
The Supreme Court affirmed the questioned COA decision with the MODIFICATION that petitioners
need not refund the allowances and honorarium received.
The issues posed in the instant petition had been settled in De Jesus vs. Commission on Audit,
where the Court affirmed the COAs disallowance of a similar grant of bonuses and allowances under
LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995.
On the issue of jurisdiction, it was held that 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 the same. This independent
constitutional body is tasked to be vigilant and conscientious in safeguarding the proper use of the
governments, and ultimately, the peoples property. It has the authority to investigate whether directors,
officials or employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, like MCWD, are entitled to
receive additional allowances and bonuses under applicable laws. If the rule were otherwise,
administrative agencies, by the mere act of issuing a resolution, can put to naught the broad and
extensive powers granted to the COA by the Constitution. This will prevent the COA from discharging its
constitutional duty as an effective, efficient and independent watchdog of the financial operations of the
government. For this reason, COA cannot be deprived of its jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of LWUA
Resolution No. 313, series of 1995.
The case of De Jesus likewise put to rest the issue of entitlement of water district Board Members to
allowances other than per diems. Section 13 of PD 198, as amended, reads:
Compensation. Each director shall receive a per diem, to be determined by the board, for each meeting
of the board actually attended by him, but no director shall receive per diems in any given month in
excess of the equivalent of the total per diems of four meetings in any given month. No director shall
receive other compensation for services to the district.
Citing the earlier case of Baybay Water District vs. Commission on Audit, the Court ruled in De
Jesus that the aforequoted provision expressly prohibits the grant of RATA, rice allowance, clothing
allowance, Christmas bonus, productivity pay and honorarium to Board members of water districts.
On the question of refund, it was also held in De Jesus that the assailed allowances and bonuses need
not be refunded. This is so because at the time such disbursements were made, the decision in Baybay
Water District vs. Commission on Audit, which enunciated the rule prohibiting the grant of allowances and
bonuses other than per diems to Board members of water districts in accordance with LWUA Resolution
No. 313, series of 1995, had not yet been promulgated. Good faith was thus considered by the Court in
holding that the recipients of the allowances and bonuses disallowed by the COA need not refund the
same.

De Jesus Vs COA - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Jesus Vs COA - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

De Jesus Vs COA - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the ruling regarding COA's jurisdiction over LWUA Resolution No. 313?

What does Section 13 of PD 198 state regarding compensation for water district board members?

RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, PRIMO T.

LOMIBAO and ALICE MARIE

You might also like