G.R. No. 127515 - RODOLFO DE JESUS, EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO AND REBECCA A. BARBO, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.

Ruling

accordingly unmeritorious. [9] It argued that DBM-CCC No. 10 was superseded by the passage of R.A. No. 6758 or the Salary Standardization Law, which expressly authorized additional allowances which were allowed prior to the effectivity of the Salary Standardization Law and not integrated into the said law. Moreover, the OSG contended that DBM-CCC No. 10 was not submitted for publication with the Official Gazette, contrary to the rule laid down in Tañada v. Tuvera . [10] In light of the adverse position it had taken from that of the COA, the OSG asked that COA instead be allowed to file its own comment, aside from the fact that it is the General Counsel of respondent COA which has been filing pleadings in behalf of the Commission before this Court. Petitioner De Vera in G.R. No. 127544 filed suit in his capacity as LWUA Administrator in behalf of all other officials and employees of the agency, and is represented by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). On the other hand, the petitioners in G.R. No. 127515, three employees of the LWUA, filed the petition in their own behalf and have been representing themselves, they being lawyers apparently. Interestingly, respondent COA, in its Memorandum , questions the legal personality of the petitioners in G.R. No. 127515, asserting that the petitioners had failed to allege in their petition their legal capacities in bringing suit against the COA. Citing relevant Civil Service rules, respondent COA alleges petitioners in G.R. No. 127515 are barred from suing the Commission in their individual capacities as officers of the LWUA as they are barred in engaging private practice of their profession. This argument, belatedly raised as it is, deserves scant consideration. The petitioners in G.R. No. 127515 are not barred by Civil Service rules from suing the COA in their own behalf, and we are satisfied that they have the requisite legal personality to institute suit before this Court. Moreover, upon consolidation of the two petitions, the OGCC submitted a Memorandum on behalf of all of the petitioners in the two petitions. Assuming arguendo that the petitioners in G.R. No. 127515 improperly filed suit without proper representation by counsel, such defect is now deemed cured and mooted by the subsequent representations in their behalf by the OGCC. The procedural aspect having been dispensed with, a discussion on the merits is now in order. The petitions are mainly anchored on the theory that DBM-CCC No. 10, upon which the disallowance of the rice subsidy was based, is without force and effect. The inefficaciousness of DBM-CCC No. 10 was declared in De Jesus v. COA, [11] where the Court was faced with the question whether petitioners therein, who are the same petitioners in G.R. No. 127515, suing on behalf of fellow LWUA employees were still entitled to the honoraria which they were receiving prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6758. Finding it unnecessary to resolve the issue whether paragraph 5.6