G.R. No. 213189 , September 8, 2015
FAUSTINO A. SILANG, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves a petition for certiorari assailing the Commission on Audit (COA) Resolution that upheld Notices of Disallowance (NDs) against the payment of Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Incentives to rank-and-file employees of the Local Government Unit (LGU) of Tayabas, Quezon, for 2008 and 2009. The LGU, through Mayor Faustino Silang, entered into CNAs with the Unyon ng mga Kawani ng Pamahalaang Lokal ng Tayabas (UNGKAT) on November 13, 2007, and February 4, 2008. The local Sanggunian subsequently passed ordinances appropriating funds for these incentives (Ordinance No. 08-03 for 2008 and Ordinance No. 09-01 for 2009). The COA disallowed these appropriations on the grounds that: (1) UNGKAT was not accredited by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) as the sole and exclusive negotiation agent at the time of the CNAs, contrary to DBM Circular No. 2006-1; and (2) for the 2008 CNA, funding was sourced from savings generated two months before the CNA was signed, also violating DBM Circular No. 2006-1. The COA Regional Director and the COA en banc affirmed the disallowances.

ISSUE

Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the disallowance of the CNA incentives and in determining the liabilities of the involved officials and employees.

RULING

The Concurring Opinion of Justice Brion agrees with the ponencia’s decision to affirm the COA’s disallowance and to partially modify the civil liabilities. The Opinion highlights the liabilities of local government officers in the disbursement of public funds. It concurs that the disallowance was proper due to non-compliance with DBM Circular No. 2006-1, specifically the lack of prior CSC accreditation of UNGKAT as the exclusive negotiation agent and the improper sourcing of funds for the 2008 CNA.
On liability:
1. Approving Officers (Mayor and Sanggunian Members): They are directly responsible and solidarity liable for the illegal expenditure. As officers vested with authority to negotiate and enter into a CNA, they have a duty to know and comply with applicable rules, such as DBM Circular No. 2006-1. They cannot invoke good faith.
2. UNGKAT Officers who directly participated in the negotiations: They are also directly responsible and solidarity liable. As leaders and representatives, they have a duty to ensure the union’s compliance with the requirement of accreditation as the exclusive negotiation agent—a requirement that had been in place since at least 2002.
3. Ordinary Rank-and-File Employees and UNGKAT members with no participation in the CNAs: They are not liable to refund the incentives. As passive recipients, they have the right to rely on the presumptions of regularity and good faith accorded to public officers and could not have known of the irregularities.
The legal basis for liability includes Section 52, Chapter 9, Title I-B, Book V of the Administrative Code and Section 351 of the Local Government Code, which make officials personally liable for unlawful expenditures. Furthermore, Book VI, Chapter V, Section 43 of the Administrative Code establishes joint and several liability for those authorizing, making, or receiving illegal payments, with an exception for those who acted in good faith—which does not apply to the approving and negotiating officers in this case.