G.R. No. 232272 - SECRETARY MARIO G. MONTEJO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (DOST), VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), AND THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GOVERNMENT SECTOR, CLUSTER B - GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICES II AND DEFENSE, COMMISSION ON AUDIT.DECISION - Supreme Court

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and the Notices of Disallowance Nos. 2011-021-101-(11) dated November 17, 2011 and 2011-022-101-(11) dated November 18, 2011 in the amount of P5,870,883.79 and P4,773,821.49, respectively, are AFFIRMED. This decision is without prejudice to a further appeal that the parties may deem proper. [8] Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with respondent COA, assailing the NGS Decision dated October 4, 2012 which affirmed the Notices of Disallowances. On October 18, 2016, the COA En Banc rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review of secretary Mario G. Montejo, Department of Science and Technology (DOST), of National Government Sector Cluster B Decision No. 2012-013 dated October 4, 2012, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance Nos. 2011-021-101-(11) dated November 17, 2011 and 2011-022-101-(11) dated November 18, 2011, on the payment of Collective Negotiation Agreement Incentives for calendar years 2010 and 2011 to DOST Central Office officials and employees in the total amount of P10,644,705.28 are AFFIRMED. [9] According to the COA En Banc , the grant of CNA Incentives by petitioner violated Sections 5.7, 7.1 and 7.1.1 of DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1, since petitioner paid the CNA Incentives during the middle of CY 2010 and 2011 and at the end of CY 2010. The COA En Banc also found that petitioner failed to submit proof that the grant of CNA incentives was sourced from the savings generated from the cost-cutting measures through a comparative statement of DBM-approved level of operating expenses and actual operating expenses. Furthermore, the COA En Banc held that the officers who approved the grant of CNA Incentives should be solidarily liable for the total disbursement and that the payees should be held liable for the amount they received pursuant to the principle of solutio indebiti . Hence, the present petition after the COA En Banc denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner raises the following grounds for the allowance of the present petition: Respondent COA gravely erred in affirming the 17 and 18 November 2011 Notices of Disallowance Nos. 2011-021-101-(11) and 2011-022-101-(11), which disallowed the payment of Collective Negotiation Agreement Incentives (CNAI) for calendar years 2010 and 2011 to DOST Central Office employees in the total amount of P10,644,705.28 because: a) Petitioner's grant of CNAI was based on identified cost­-cutting measures; b) Petitioner's grant of CNAI was sourced from the savings generated from the cost-cutting measures through a comparative statement of DBM approved level of operating expenses and actual operating expenses; c) Petitioner's grant of CNAI substantially complied with the requirements under DBM Circular No. 2006-1; and d) The payment of CNAI was done in good faith, hence, no liability attaches therefrom. [10] Pe