276775 Teresita P. De Guzman, et al. Vs. Commission on Audit — Official PDF

Decision 12 7 G.R. No. 276775 i. In the interest of justice, We resolve the Petition on the merits despite its procedural defects. The disbursements in question were paid to petitioners de Guzman, Royeca, and Tenedero in recognition of their efforts toward the accomplishment of the BWD’s projects. While the resolutions characterized the payments as fringe benefits,” they were nevertheless charged against the BWD’s EME account. The resident auditors thus treated them as EMEs and disallowed them for being in excess of the limit for EMEs under the 2009 GAA, as Presidential Decree No. 198 did not regulate EMEs. It is settled law that the compensation of local water district managers is governed by Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758, which provides that all allowances not mentioned therein are deemed integrated into the standard salary. DBM CCC No. 10, which also governs compensation of GOCC employees, declares all allowances not mentioned therein or in Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758, as unauthorized and illegal disbursements of public funds. The legality of EME payments to water district executives has been settled in Paguio v. Commission on Audit,® where We upheld the disallowance of PHP 432,000.00 in EME payments to Paguio, the then-GM of the Pagsanjan Water District. Paguio held that EME payments to local water district GMs are ultra vires because EMEs are not among the exceptions to the salary integration rule under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758: {T]he Salary Standardization Law applies to all government positions, including those in government-owned and controlled corporations. However, an exemption to the rule exists where the said corporation’s charter explicitly exempts it from the coverage of the Salary Standardization Law. In view thereof, ... despite the amendment of Presidential Decree No. 198 through Republic Act No. 9286 on April 2, 2004, no such exemption from the coverage of the Salary Standardization Law was expressly granted to the position of general manager of local water districts. Accordingly, a local water district’s board of directors maintains the power to fix the compensation of its general manager, provided that such See Abriga v. Commission on Audit-Commission Proper, 921 Phil. 1067, 1075-76 (2022) [Per J. Zalameda, En Banc]. 6 Rollo, pp. 113-114. © Ancheta v. Commission on Audit, 895 Phil. 347, 356-361 (2021) [Per J. M.V. Lopez, En Banc]; Almodovar y, Pulido-Tan, 773 Phil. 165, 173-175 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, &n Banc]; Mendoza v. Commission on Audit, TIT Phil. 491, 504-522 (2013) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. © 931 Phil. 489 (2022) [Per J. J.Y. Lopez, &r Bane}, 66