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

Decision , 4 G.R. No. 276775 her direct supervision vine A Senior Accountant Ceniied that the Yes supporting the disbursements subject of ND Nos. 12-013-101-(09), Joanna Carame Junior Accountant ot 2 ; ot “(09 No 12-020-101-(09), and 12-022-101-(09) were complete and __|__ proper”? Certified that the documents supporting the disbursements Corporate Accounts | subject of ND Nos. No Analyst ND Nos. 12-014- 101-(09), 12-019- 101-(09) were complete and proper”! 19 Jo Allan Baptista Salvador M. Royeca Assistant General Received the Ma. Luisa C. Manager disbursed amounts** Tenedero Yes Petitioners appealed the disallowance to the COA-Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), arguing that: 1) the applicable law is not the 2009 GAA but Presidential Decree No. 198, which governs the rights, powers, and privileges of provincial water utilities; 2) the disbursements are not EMEs but fringe benefits as defined in the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), the amount of which can be fixed by the BWD Board under Presidential Decree No. 198; 3) the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued a letter allowing employees of local water utilities to continue receiving allowances or fringe benefits that were given prior to the classification of local water utilities as GOCCs, provided that these benefits are proven to be part of established practice as of December 31, 1999; and 4) it would be unfair to order petitioners to refund the disallowed amounts as they received them in good faith.” The resident auditors replied that: 1) since BWD already admitted its status as a GOCC, it is already subject to COA and Civil Service rules, including 8 td. 20 Id. dd. 22 Id. at 33-35, 98-111. 3 Id. at 44. COA-CAR Decision, 2 Id. at 44-45,