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

Decision 17 G.R. No. 276775 the family are not civilly liable to return consistent with Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987. b. Approving and certifying officers who are clearly shown to have acted in bad faith, malice, or gross negligence are, pursuant to Section 43 of the Administrative Code of 1987, solidarily liable to return only the net disallowed amount which, as discussed herein, excludes. amounts excused under the following Sections 2c and 2d. c. Recipients —— whether approving or certifying officers or mere passive recipients — are liable to return the disallowed amounts respectively received by them, unless they are able to show that the amounts they received were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered. d. The Court may likewise excuse the return of recipients based on undue prejudice, social justice considerations, and other bona fide exceptions as it may determine on a case to case basis.*! ...[AJuthorizing officers for unnecessary disallowances generally have no liability to return the expenditures. Nevertheless, liability may attach if it is proven that the officers purposely and knowingly issued the unnecessary funds. As for disallowances of illegal or irregular expenditures, a more objective approach is taken. First, the authorizing officer’s basis for issuing the benefit must be reviewed. For one to be absolved of liability, the following requisites must be present: (1) a certificate of availability of funds, pursuant to Section 40 of the Administrative Code; (2) an in-house or a Department of Justice legal opinion; (3) lack of jurisprudence disallowing a similar case; (4) the issuance of the benefit is traditionally practiced within the agency and no prior disallowance has been issued; and (5) on the question of law, that there is a reasonable textual interpretation on the expenditure or benefit’s legality. If all of these requirements are met, the authorizing officer is absolved of liability for having shown that they exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the performance of their duty.** As a supplement to the Madera Rules on Return, the Court now finds it fitting to clarify that in order to fall under Rule 2c, i.e., amounts genuinely given in consideration of services rendered, the following requisites must concur: (a) the personnel incentive or benefit has proper basis in law but is only disallowed due to irregularities that are merely procedural in nature; and {b) the personnel incentive or benefit must have a clear, direct, and- reasonable connection to the actual performance of the payee-recipient’s official work and functions for which ihe benefit or incentive was intended as further compensation. Madera v, Commission on Audit, 882 Phil. 744, 818-819 (2020) [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc]. Senior Associate Justice J. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen,, concurting opinion in Madera v. Commission on Audit, id. at 853-854. Abellanosa v. Commission on Audit, 899 Phil. 413, 430 (2020) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc]. 81 82 83