The Supreme Court has partly granted a petition filed by former and current employees of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), ruling that they are not liable to refund disallowed benefits they received in 2012 and 2013.
The Court declared that the Commission on Audit's (COA) Decision No. 2019-291 dated July 4, 2019 is final and executory insofar as the petitioners are concerned, and set aside a later COA resolution that had found the employees liable to return the disallowed amounts.
The Case
The petitioners are affected employees of the PCGG and the members of the PCGG Employees Association (PCGGEA), as represented by Atty. Dennyson Q. Castillo and Laurent R. Armendi.
In 2012 and 2013, the PCGG granted calamity assistance, gift checks, goodwill incentives, and Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives (collectively, PCGG benefits) to its employees, including those under contract of service such as expense entitlement personnel and special legal counsels and consultants. These were purportedly supported by several PCGG resolutions authorizing amounts ranging from PHP 5,000.00 to PHP 25,000.00 per person.
On November 27, 2013, COA auditors issued Notices of Disallowance disallowing the grant of said PCGG benefits, which disallowance was affirmed by the COA National Government Sector-Cluster IV. The affected PCGG officers, including Bracero, on behalf of the PCGG employees, filed their respective petitions for review, which were consolidated.
In its Decision No. 2019-291, the COA partially granted the petitions, affirming the disallowance with modification and ruling that the payees who received the disallowed benefits need not refund the same, while the rest of the persons named liable remained liable. The petitioners, as represented by Bracero, no longer appealed nor moved for reconsideration of that decision.
However, Lourdes G. Navarro, chief accountant, and Conrado L. Afable, administrative officer V, both of PCGG, filed their respective motions for reconsideration. On December 7, 2023, the COA issued Resolution No. 2023-372, which partially granted those motions.
The Issue
The petition questioned whether the COA could enforce Resolution No. 2023-372 dated December 7, 2023 insofar as it found the petitioners liable to return the disallowed amounts, and whether a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction should be issued.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that the exemption of the petitioners from refunding the disallowed benefits had become final and executory and should no longer be disturbed. Consequently, the COA may not enforce Resolution No. 2023-372 dated December 7, 2023 insofar as it found petitioners liable to return the disallowed amounts.
The Court's disposition stated: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. Decision No. 2019-291 dated July 4, 2019 of the Commission on Audit is rendered FINAL and EXECUTORY insofar as petitioners are concerned."
It added that "Resolution No. 2023-372 dated December 7, 2023 of the Commission on Audit insofar as it found petitioners liable for the disallowed PCGG benefits is SET ASIDE," while "The prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for lack of merit."
By the Numbers
- PHP 25,000.00 each — CNA cash incentive for regular employees, including expense entitlement personnel (Resolution No. 2012-035-905); PHP 10,000.00 each for special legal counsels and consultants
- PHP 20,000.00 each — gift checks for regular employees (Resolution No. 2012-036-906); PHP 10,000.00 each for special legal counsels and consultants
- PHP 10,000.00 each — calamity assistance for regular employees (Resolution No. 2012-025-895); PHP 5,000.00 each for special legal counsels and consultants
- PHP 10,000.00 each — goodwill incentive (Resolution No. 2013-004-910)
- PHP 8,343,000.00 — total disallowed amount
- November 27, 2013 — issuance of the Notices of Disallowance
- July 4, 2019 — COA Decision No. 2019-291
- December 7, 2023 — COA Resolution No. 2023-372
The Court's Reasoning
The COA had disallowed the PCGG benefits because they were paid without legal basis and/or specific appropriation for the purpose, and contrary to existing laws and regulations. The COA explained that Section 2 of Administrative Order No. 135 provides that the CNA incentive shall be granted only to rank-and-file employees, and that Budget Circular No. 2012-4 dated December 17, 2012 entitles only rank-and-file employees and personnel performing managerial functions to CNA incentives. As regards calamity assistance, gift checks, and goodwill incentive, the COA held that the PCGG officers and employees failed to present their legal basis.
On the prayer for injunctive relief, the Court found no basis. It reiterated the requisites for a writ of preliminary injunction, including that the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected, a right in esse. The Court held that the exemption of petitioners from refunding the disallowed amounts cannot be considered actual, clear, and existing, since it is contingent upon the ruling of the Court, and that petitioners failed to show a substantial and material invasion of any right.
The Court further noted that injury is irreparable where there is no standard by which its amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy, and that here the disallowed amounts are quantifiable. A writ of injunction should never issue when an action for damages would adequately compensate the injuries caused.
The Court found it unnecessary to delve on the other arguments raised in the Petition.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 280106, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.