G.R. No. 227715 - FR. RANHILIO CALLANGAN AQUINO, DR. PABLO F. NARAG, IN REPRESENTATION OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES OF THE CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, all officers and employees who had received the compensation were directed to refund the amounts received. This was similarly applied in Casal v. Commission on Audit , in which the incentive awards for employees, also released without authority from the President, were disallowed. This Court said: The failure of petitioners-approving officers to observe all these issuances cannot be deemed a mere lapse consistent with the presumption of good faith. Rather, even if the grant of the incentive award were not for a dishonest purpose as they claimed, the patent disregard of the issuances of the President and the directives of the COA amounts to gross negligence, making them liable for the refund thereof. The following ruling in National Electrification Administration v. COA bears repeating: .... This case would not have arisen had NEA complied in good faith with the directives and orders of the President in implementation of the last phase of the Salary Standardization Law II. The directives and orders are clearly and manifestly in accordance with all relevant laws. The reasons advanced by NEA in disregarding the President's directives and orders are patently flimsy, even ill-conceived. This cannot be countenanced as it will result in chaos and disorder in the executive branch to the detriment of public service. On the other hand, this Court has been more forgiving in disallowed expenditures that were unnecessary-those not supportive of the government agency's main objective, inessential, or dispensable. For these, the participants need not return the expenditures to allow the executives or implementers leeway in carrying out their functions. They are expected to create contingencies in light of circumstances that are fluid and susceptible to change. Given that the Commission on Audit merely reviews expenditures in hindsight, to make authorizing officers liable to return the disallowed amounts will hamper the decision-making of an executive and further constrain the implementation of government programs. Moreover, it may cause a chilling effect on government officials. To avoid this, authorizing officers for unnecessary disallowances generally have no liability to return the expenditures. Nevertheless, liability may attach if it is proven that the officers purposely and knowingly issued he unnecessary funds. As for disallowances of illegal or irregular expenditures, a more objective approach is taken. First, the authorizing officer's basis for issuing the benefit must be reviewed. For one to be absolved of liability, the following requisites must be present: (1) a certificate of availability of funds, pursuant to Section 4026 of the Administrative Code; (2) an in­house or a Department of Justice legal opinion; (3) lack of jurisprudence disallowing a similar case; (4) the issuance of the benefit is traditionally practiced within the agency and no prior disallowance has been issued; and (5) on the question of law, that there is a reasonable