G.R. No. L-38728 September 30, 1982
CONRADO V. MACATANGAY, petitioner, vs. THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Conrado V. Macatangay, a former Municipal Mayor of Calaca, Batangas, filed an application for the commutation of his terminal leave covering his periods of service. His application was initially approved by the Department of Local Government and Community Development. However, the Provincial Auditor held the claim in abeyance. Subsequently, the Commission on Audit (COA), through the Auditor General, formally disallowed the claim. The COA relied on a legal opinion from the Secretary of Justice stating that if a local elective official is not entitled to leave privileges under existing laws, then no earned or accrued leave exists to be commuted. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
Petitioner contends he is entitled to leave privileges under Sections 286 and 2187 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 12(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186 , as amended. He further argues that the Court’s ruling in Manuel v. General Auditing Office is squarely applicable to his case. The respondent COA maintains there is no law expressly granting leave privileges or their commutation to elective officials like municipal mayors and that the Manuel case is not a binding precedent for such claims.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether a former municipal mayor, as an elective local official, is entitled to the commutation of terminal leave under existing laws.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the COA’s disallowance. The legal logic is anchored on the absence of a statutory grant of leave privileges to elective officials. The Court examined Chapter 13 of the Revised Administrative Code, known as the Leave Law. It found that the provisions specifically mentioning entitlement—such as those for Justices, Judges, teachers, and general officers and employees—refer exclusively to appointive officials. This intent is clear from Section 284, which grants leave after “at least six months continuous, faithful and satisfactory service,” a civil service probationary requirement applicable only to appointive personnel, not to elective officials who assume office for a fixed term.
The Court further reasoned that the nature of elective office itself negates the concept of accrued leave. Elective officials are entitled to their full salary regardless of actual daily attendance, as they are deemed to be in continuous service to their constituents. Consequently, there is no legal basis for them to earn or accumulate vacation or sick leave. The laws cited by petitioner were deemed unavailing: Section 2187 pertains to specific instances of paid absence, not to the general accrual of leave, and Section 12(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186 presupposes the existence of earned leave, which petitioner did not have. The Manuel case was distinguished and could not serve as a sole basis for audit claims without a foundational law granting the leave privilege. Therefore, in the absence of a law granting elective officials the right to earn leave, no claim for its commutation can be allowed.