Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office DENIES the appeal and [AFFIRMS] ND No. 2011-010-101-(08-10) disallowing the total amount of [PHP] 355,000.00 corresponding to the Christmas token paid to the Board Members and ICPC members of ICAB. [27] On February 3, 2016, Abejo received a copy of Decision No.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office DENIES the appeal and [AFFIRMS] ND No. 2011-010-101-(08-10) disallowing the total amount of [PHP] 355,000.00 corresponding to the Christmas token paid to the Board Members and ICPC members of ICAB. [27] On February 3, 2016, Abejo received a copy of Decision No. 2016-001. [28] Aggrieved, Abejo filed a Petition for Review [29] before the Commission Proper on March 4, 2016. [30] Citing Sison v. Tablang , [31] Abejo argued that this Court has previously stated that government employees who perform tasks that are outside of their functions must be compensated. [32] The grant was expressly permitted under Section 14 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 8043. [33] Similarly, Abejo noted that the grant of year-end tokens to government employees during Christmas season has been an existing practice sanctioned under Republic Act No. 6686, [34] as amended by Republic Act No. 8441, as well as DBM Budget Circular No. 2010-01. [35] Thus, Abejo maintained that she should not be penalized and held liable for the disallowed amount. [36] On August 16, 2019, the Commission on Audit denied the Petition in its Decision No. 2019-347. [37] The Commission on Audit held that the Christmas tokens were granted without legal basis as they were not included as a benefit that may be granted to government employees under Section 45 of the General Provisions of Republic Act No. 9970. [38] Additionally, because the tokens were given at year-end, they fall within the ambit of Section 7.0 of DBM Budget Circular No. 2005-6 dated October 28, 2005, [39] which generally prohibits the grant of other benefits that partake of the nature of year-end benefits, unless authorized by the President. [40] Moreover, citing Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 43 of the Administrative Code of 1987, the Commission held that Abejo, being the head of the agency and a lawyer, cannot invoke good faith since the grant has no legal basis. [41] The dispositive portion of the Decision states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal, treated as a Petition for Review, of Ms. Bernadette B. Abejo, Executive Director, Inter-Country Adoption Board (ICAB), of Commission on Audit National Government Sector-Cluster 6 Decision No. 2016-001 dated January 22, 2016 is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance No. 2011-010-101-(08-10) dated April [4], 2011, on the payment of Christmas tokens to ICAB Board members and Inter-Country Placement Committee members, in the amount of [PHP) 355,000.00, is AFFIRMED. [42] On September 6, 2019, Abejo received Decision No. 2019-347. [43] On November 5, 2019, [44] Abejo filed a Motion for Reconsideration. [45] Aside from reiterating her prior arguments, she asserted that because the Inter-Country Placement Committee members are not paid regular salary or monthly compensation, the conditions of the grant of honoraria as provided under Section 4 of DBM Budget Circular No. 2003-05 and Section 49 of Republic Act N
G.R. No. 237987 - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REGION IV-A AND GENEVIEVE E. CUARESMA, AS ONE OF THE CERTIFYING OFFICERS AT THE TIME OF THE GRANT OF THE ASSAILED CNA INCENTIVE,*, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 237987 -
CaseG.R. No. 253777 - MARY GRACE D. CORPUZ, SOPHIA T. BORJA, LEO C. JAVIER, CAESAR JOVENTINO M. TADO, AND BABYLINDA O. REYES, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 253777 -
CaseG.R. No. 259862 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 259862 -