G.R. No. 260458 - PATRICK ALEX M. HAGEDORN, TRISHA MAE C. ASUNCION, MARIA REGINA S. CANTILLO, MARIA CORAZON A. ABAYARI, ROSALIA B. ORTIZ, AND AQUILINO B. CARIÑO, JR., VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Consolidated Appeal of former City Mayor Edward S. Hagedorn, et al., all of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance Nos. 13­-057-100 (2011) to 13-130-100 (2011), all dated November 25, 2013, and 13-131-­100 (2011) to 13-150-100 (2012), all dated December 2, 2013, on the payment of retirement benefits under the "Early and Voluntary Separation Incentive [P]rogram["] in the total amount of [PHP] 89,672,400.74, are AFFIRMED . [23] (Emphasis in the original) The Regional Director held that the first batch of the consolidated appeals (i.e., ND Nos. Nos. 13-057-100 [2011] to 13-130-100 [2011], all dated November 25, 2013) was filed after 197 days from date of receipt of the subject NDs, or well beyond the six-month reglementary period provided in Rule V, Section 4 [24] of then COA's 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure. Thus, the said NDs had already become final and executory. [25] As to the second batch, the Regional Director affirmed the following findings of the ATL and SA: The PPCG's EVSIP was not enacted pursuant to any reorganization law for the PPCG. [26] Nowhere in Section 76 [27] of Republic Act No. 7160, [28] otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, does it explicitly state that the PPCG is empowered to create an early retirement program for its employees. [29] PPCG's EVSIP is basically a supplementary retirement plan designed to reward employees' loyalty and service, the grant of which is inextricably linked to, and inseparable from, the application and approval of their retirement benefits under the law. It is thus prohibited under Section 10(b) [30] of Republic Act No. 4968, [31] which amended Section 28 of Commonwealth Act No. 186, [32] otherwise known as the Government Service Insurance Act. [33] The operative fact doctrine is inapplicable since Ordinance No. 438 was not declared void or unconstitutional by any court. [34] Abayari, et al.'s acts in certifying the necessity and legality of the EVSIP as charges to PPCG's appropriations required their official discretion or judgment, and thus were not ministerial in nature. Thus, they cannot be relieved of liability concerning the same. [35] The PPCG employees who received any incentives under the EVSIP have the obligation to return the same under the principle of solutio indebiti under Article 2154 [36] of Republic Act No. 386, [37] otherwise known as the Civil Code of the Philippines. [38] Aggrieved, Abayari, et al. filed separate petitions for review before the COA Commission Proper. Abayari, Cantillo, Cariño and Ortiz filed a petition for review on May 12, 2016, together with other officials and personnel of the PPCG; while Hagedorn and Asuncion filed a petition for review on May 18, 2016, together with former Mayor Hagedorn and other certain officials and employees of the PPCG, and payee-beneficiaries of the disallowed benefits. [39] The two petitions were consolidated by the COA