GR 143596; (December, 2003) (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, formerly the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, received his salary and Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) from the Supreme Court. Additionally, starting 1984, he received a monthly allowance from the Municipality of Naujan. In 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan approved Resolution No. 101, increasing this local monthly allowance from ₱944 to ₱1,600. The municipal government incorporated this amount into its approved supplemental and annual budgets.
Provincial Auditor Salvacion Dalisay directed the stoppage of this allowance payment and required a refund, opining that the municipality could not grant RATA to the judge on top of what he received from the Supreme Court. She cited Section 36 of R.A. No. 7645 (the General Appropriations Act of 1993) and National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 67, which states that “No one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than one source.” This disallowance was affirmed by COA Regional Director Gregoria Ong and, ultimately, by the Commission on Audit (COA) proper.
ISSUE
Whether the Municipality of Naujan could validly grant a monthly allowance to Judge Leynes in addition to the RATA he received from the Supreme Court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the COA’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the explicit prohibition against double compensation from public funds for the same purpose. The Court ruled that the local allowance granted to Judge Leynes was, in substance, a Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA). This conclusion was based on the nomenclature used in the Sangguniang Bayan resolution and the nature of the allowance as a benefit for the performance of official functions.
Since Judge Leynes was already receiving a RATA directly from the Supreme Court, as the national government agency funding his office, the additional local grant violated the clear mandate of NCC No. 67 that “No one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than one source.” This rule is designed to prevent undue enrichment from public coffers and ensure equitable compensation. The Court further found that the grant failed to comply with the preconditions under Local Budget Circular No. 53, particularly the requirement that “similar allowances/additional compensation are not granted by the national government.” Therefore, the COA correctly disallowed the expenditure as an illegal use of local government funds.