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

Decision 5 G.R. No. 276775 those governing’ the grant of additional benefits to its employees; 2) the disallowed amounts were treated as EMEs because they were debited to the extraordinary expense account, the audit of which is based on COA Circular No. 2006-001 governing the EMEs and other similar expenses of GOCCs; and 3) refund is proper because the disallowed amounts were paid out in violation of the GAA and COA Circular No. 2006-001. On May 21, 2015, the COA-CAR rendered a Decision”® affirming the NDs.”’ The regional audit office sustained the BWD resident auditors’ reasoning on the applicability of the 2009 GAA to the disallowed amounts. Under COA Circular No. 2006-001, if a GOCC’s charter does not contain an authority to grant EMEs, such authority is deemed derived from the 2009 GAA, and the limits fixed by the 2009 GAA for EMEs will apply. Since Presidential Decree No. 198 contains no authority to grant EMEs, the Board’s grant of EMEs to its GM and AGMs must be understood to have been based on the 2009 GAA.”8 As regards petitioners’ claim that the fringe benefits were “orandfathered” by the DBM, the COA-CAR found that the fringe benefits were based on board resolutions passed in 2008, and there was no proof that they were part of BWD’s benefit package before December 31, 1999. Furthermore, there is no account for fringe benefits in the Philippine Government Chart of Accounts. The payment of additional fringe benefits is prohibited by paragraphs 5.4 to 5.6 of DBM Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10,°° and is considered illegal disbursement of public funds. Even assuming that BWD had the authority to pay out said benefits, the amounts it authorized are nevertheless extravagant as defined in the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, as they effectively doubled the total amount of salary and benefits received by the GM and AGMs without sufficient justification?! Finally, refund is proper. Petitioners cannot claim good faith as they blatantly disregarded the applicable laws and regulations and insisted on their own interpretation thereof. Furthermore, they charged the benefits to the extraordinary expense account and then objected to the application of the auditing rules governing said account.>? Petitioners lodged a Petition for Review with the COA proper, still arguing that: 1) the 2009 GAA does not apply to the questioned fringe benefits, which were granted by authority of the Board; 2) the power granted 25 Id at 4546. ; 26 Id. at 43-54. Signed by Regional Director Eden T. Rafanan. 27 Td, at 53-54, Id. at 47-8. 2% Id. at 48-49. 3 Dated February 15, 1999. 3 Rollo, pp. 49-53. COA-CAR Decision. 2 Id. at 53. \f