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

Decision 6 G.R. No. 276775 to the Board by Presidential Decree No. 198 is superior to COA Circular No. 2006-001; and 3) the refund. of the fringe benefits received would be a violation of the precepts of justice and equity. The COA proper denied the Petition for lack of merit. It held that the Board’s power to grant incentives and benefits to its employees is subject to the executive control power and the audit prerogatives of the COA. Administrative Order (AO) No. 103 limits the combined total of per diems, honoraria, and allowances of GOCC employees to a maximum of PHP 20,000.00 per month, while COA Circular No. 2006-001 and the 2009 GAA set the annual limit of extraordinary expenses of heads of Bureau Regional Offices and officers of equivalent rank at PHP 22,000.00 plus an additional PHP 72,000.00 for miscellaneous expenses. Here, petitioner Teresita P. de Guzman (de Guzman) received a total of PHP 683,882.37 from January to December 2009 as the incumbent GM, while petitioners Salvador M. Royeca (Royeca) and Ma. Luisa C. Tenedero (Tenedero) were paid a total of PHP 705,882.24 for the same period, as the incumbent AGMs, all in excess of the limits set by the aforementioned regulations. Thé payments were not supported by receipts or other documentary proof of disbursement, as required by COA Circular No. 2006- 001. Too, AGMs and their equivalent-ranked counterparts are not among the officers entitled to receive EMEs under the 2009 GAA. The disbursements are therefore illegal and the resident auditors did not err in disallowing the whole amounts.*4 Classifying the disbursements as fringe benefits will not save the day for petitioners, as fringe benefits are not exempt from the integration of all allowances into the standardized salary rates and may therefore be granted only by authority of the President. There is no proof that the questioned fringe benefits were not consolidated into the standard salary of the BWD’s employees, or that de Guzman, Royeca, and Tenedero were incumbents in their respective positions and legally authorized to discharge the duties of their offices as of July 1, 1989. Furthermore, since the benefits in question are in the nature of performance bonuses, they should have been charged to the Productivity Incentive Allowance account.*> Finally, petitioners must return the disallowed amounts, because the disbursements would not have been made without their participation.” Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that de Guzman, Royeca, and Tenedero are not liable to return the disbursements following guideline 2(c) of Madera v. Commission on Audit,” which absolves recipients 3 Id. at 35. COA Decision No. 2020-487, Id. at 37-39, 33 Id. at 39-40. 6 Id. at 40-41, 37 882 Phil. 744 (2020) [Per J. Cagaioa, &n Banc}