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

G.R. No. 276775 wn Decision | Thus, the COA correctly applied the provisions of the 2009 GAA in disallowing the questioned benefits. In Paguio again: The grant of the Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses in question is provided for under Section 25 of the 2009 General Appropriations Act and Section 28 of the 2010 General Appropriations Act. Both provisions are similarly worded as follows: {E]xtraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses. Appropriations authorized herein may be used for extraordinary expenses of the following officials and those of equivalent rank as may be authorized by the DBM, not exceeding: (a) [PHP] 220,000 for each Department Secretary; (b) [PHP] 90,000 for each Department Undersecretary; (c) [PHP 50,000 for each Department Assistant Secretary; (d) [PHP] 38,000 for each head of bureau or organization of equivalent rank, and for each head of a Department Regional Office; (e) [PHP] 22,000 for each head of a Bureau Regional Office or organization of equivalent rank; and (f) [PHP] 16,000 for each Municipal Trial Court Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge, and Shari’a Circuit Court Judge. Undoubtedly, the above provisions dictate that only those officials named therein or the officers equivalent in rank, as may be authorized by the DBM, are entitled to claim reimbursement for Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses in the amounts not exceeding those provided. Jt is evident that a general manager of a local water district is not among those public officers mentioned. Paguio et al. likewise failed to prove that the said position has been authorized by the DBM as an officer equivalent in rank with the officials listed. Thus, there is no legal basis for the grant of Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses to Paguio and he is not entitled to the same.” De Guzman and Paguio are both local water district GMs who were granted EMEs in fiscal year 2009. Petitioners also failed to prove that the AGMs, Royeca and Tenedero, hold ranks equivalent to those mentioned in Section 25 of the 2009 GAA. The abovequoted ruling on the validity of Paguio’s benefits is thus squarely applicable to De Guzman, Royeca, and Tenedero. . Treating the disallowed payments as fringe benefits will not save petitioners’ case, for such benefits are also not among the exempted classes of B® Id. at 304-505, citing REPUBLIC ACY'NG. 9524 (2609), sec. 25.