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

Decision 7 G.R. No. 276775 of disallowed disbursements from liability if the amounts are shown to have been genuinely given in consideration of services rendered.** The COA rejected the argument, ruling that guideline 2c of Madera was “not intended to cover compensation not authorized by law or those granted against salary standardization laws”, and only covers disbursements that “hav/e] proper basis in law... [and] a clear, direct, and reasonable connection to the actual performance of the payee-recipient’s official work and functions.” The personal liability of officers who approve or certify expenditures contrary to law or regulations is based on Section 52, Chapter 9, Subtitle B, Title 1, Book V and Section 43, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code of 1987, while the personal liability of recipients of such illegal expenditures is based on the civil law principles of unjust enrichment and solutio indebiti.” Before this Court, petitioners insist that: 1) the benefits in question are authorized by Sections 6 and 17 of Presidential Decree No. 198, and by Section 33(B) of the NIRC; 2) the consolidation of allowances and compensation under Republic Act No. 6758 is not inconsistent with the bonus- granting powers of local water utilities under Presidential Decree No. 198;"! and 3) they should not be held liable for the disallowed amounts as they relied bona fide on the statutory bonus-granting powers of the BWD Board.” On the COA’s behalf, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) prays that the Petition be dismissed outright for being an unsigned pleading, pointing to the fact that the Petition was signed and filed not by a member of the Philippine Bar, but by an attorney-in-fact who is not party to the case. The OSG asserts that non-lawyers may personally appear before tribunals to litigate their own cases but are not allowed to appear on behalf of other persons, and Rule 7, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Court, as amended, requires every pleading to be signed by the party or their counsel. Since the present Petition was not signed by the parties nor their counsel who is a member of the Bar, it must be treated as an unsigned pleading with no legal effect.” On the substantive aspect, the OSG argues that while the questioned disbursements are indeed in the nature of fringe benefits, they remain illegal because Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 mandates the inclusion of all allowances and benefits into the standardized salary rates prescribed in said statute, unless excluded by law or by order of the DBM. The fringe benefits in question do not fall under any of ilie exceptions in Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758. In fact, DBM Corporate Compensation Circular (CCC) No. 10 declares all allowances and fringe benefits on top of the standardized salary 38 Rollo, pp. 91--92. COA Decision No. 2023-457. % Id. at 92-94, quoting Abellanosa v. Commission on Audit, 890 Phil. 413, 431-432 (2020) [Per J. Perlas- Bernabe, En Banc]: 48 Ted, at 94-95. # Jd. at 6-10, 226--227. 4 fd. at (0-14, 227-228. 8 fd. at 169-171, Comment.