G.R. No. 242082 /G.R. No. 242083, June 15, 2021
SER JOHN PASTRANA, VIVIAN VERIDIANO DACANAY, AND NORLYN TOMAS, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 242083] MARY JANE G. YSMAEL, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On December 11, 2008, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and its employees’ union, Gabay ng LRA Inc., entered into a Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) providing for the grant of incentives sourced from savings from released Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) allotments. On April 7, 2010, the LRA Administrator authorized the payment of a CNA incentive of P15,000.00 to each employee for calendar year 2009. On January 6, 2011, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2011-001-151(10), disallowing the total payment of P30,180,000.00 on the grounds that: (1) the incentive was granted out of a regular fund release intended for additional MOOE and capital outlay, not from savings; (2) the payment was irregular for not adhering to established guidelines; and (3) the amount was predetermined and fixed, contrary to DBM Circular No. 2006-1. The ND held petitioners Ser John Pastrana, Vivian Dacanay, Norlyn Tomas (as employees’ representatives who recommended the payment guidelines), and Mary Jane Ysmael (as the certifying officer on the Obligation Request) liable. The COA-National Government Sector-Cluster B and the COA Proper affirmed the disallowance. The COA Proper, in its Resolution dated January 30, 2018, modified its decision by exempting the payees who received the incentives in good faith from refunding, but maintained the liability of the recommending, certifying, and approving officers.

ISSUE

Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disallowance of the CNA incentives and in holding the petitioners liable for its refund.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions and AFFIRMED the assailed Commission on Audit Decision No. 2015-004 and Resolution No. 2018-201. The Court held that the grant of the CNA incentive was invalid for violating existing laws and regulations. The incentive was not sourced from savings generated from cost-cutting measures under the CNA, but was charged against a specific fund (Special Account in the General Fund or Fund 151) intended for other purposes and not included in the LRA’s proposed expenditures approved by the DBM. Furthermore, the fixed amount of P15,000.00 without a supporting computation of actual savings contravened DBM Circular No. 2006-1. The Court sustained the COA’s finding of liability on the part of the petitioners. As employees’ representatives who recommended the guidelines for the illegal disbursement, petitioners Pastrana, Dacanay, and Tomas are presumed to know the relevant rules and their recommendation was a direct cause of the illegal payment. Petitioner Ysmael, as a certifying officer, failed in her duty to ensure that the disbursement was lawful and supported by complete and valid documents. Their liability is solidary with the other approving officers. The Court, however, noted the modification by the COA Proper that the passive recipients who received the incentive in good faith need not refund the amount.