G.R. No. L-51282 May 10, 1983
FELIX V. TENORIO, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and the PROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF CAMARINES NORTE, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioner Felix V. Tenorio, former municipal mayor of Labo, Camarines Norte, filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Commission on Audit and the Provincial Auditor to audit and authorize payment for his voucher covering the money value of his alleged ten months of accumulated terminal leave. His service spanned from January 1, 1952, to December 31, 1971. His claim was approved by the Minister of Local Government and Community Development, subject to the availability of funds and auditing requirements.
The respondents opposed the claim, asserting that under existing laws, a municipal mayor, as an elective official, is not entitled to earn leave credits or to their commutation. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte ruled in favor of Tenorio, ordering the respondents to audit the voucher and authorize payment. The respondents appealed, and the case was certified to the Supreme Court as it involved a pure question of law.

ISSUE

Whether a municipal mayor, as an elective official, is entitled to earn accumulated leave credits and to the commutation thereof upon retirement.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative, setting aside the lower court’s decision. The Court held that there is no specific provision of law granting leave privileges or their commutation to elective officials, such as municipal mayors. The Court reiterated its ruling in Macatangay v. Chairman, Commission on Audit.
The legal logic is clear and structured. First, Section 286 of the Revised Administrative Code, which provides for the commutation of leave, must be read in relation to Sections 284 and 285-A of the same Code, collectively known as the “Leave Law.” These provisions explicitly apply only to appointed officers, employees, teachers, or laborers of the government, as evidenced by the requirement of a six-month probationary period—a civil service condition inapplicable to elective officials who serve a fixed term.
Second, Section 12(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186 , as amended (the Retirement Law), while including elective officials for retirement benefits, does not automatically grant them the pecuniary privilege of commutation. Such a privilege depends on the existence of a separate law expressly granting them leave credits, which is absent.
Finally, the Court clarified that the case of Manuel v. General Auditing Office could not serve as a sole basis for such claims. Any elective official claiming commutation must first unequivocally demonstrate under which legal provision they earned and accumulated leave credits. In the absence of such a law, no claim for commutation can be allowed in audit. Therefore, Tenorio’s claim was properly disallowed.