Camanian, Jr. v. Commission on Audit

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 211987. June 3, 2014.]

SALVADOR A. CAMANIAN, JR., ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COUNSEL OF METRO CEBU WATER DISTRICT [MCWD], CEBU CITY, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JUNE 3, 2014, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 211987 (Salvador A. Camanian, Jr., Assistant Government Corporate Counsel, Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, in his capacity as counsel of Metro Cebu Water District [MCWD], Cebu City, petitioner v. Commission on Audit, respondent)

RESOLUTION

Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to annul Commission on Audit (COA) Decision No. 2012-102 dated 12 July 2012, 1 as well as the Resolution dated 14 February 2014, 2 which rulings sustained Notice of Disallowance No. 2007-008-101 (2005-2006) dated 5 November 2007 on the payment of allowances to petitioner as "detailed/in house counsel" of Metro Cebu Water District (MCWD) in the amount of P138,752.00.

The records show that in 2005, the Government Corporate Counsel (GCC), via Office Order No. 141, series of 2006, designated petitioner Atty. Salvador Camanian, Jr. (petitioner), then Assistant Government Corporate Counsel, as in-house counsel of MCWD, to wit: 3

July 19, 2005

OFFICE ORDER NO. 141.

Series of 2006

Re: Designation of AGCC Salvador A. Camanian, Jr. to handle/perform additional or special legal services except criminal cases pertaining to Metro Cebu Water District (MCWD), Cebu City

In the exigency of the service and in addition to the regular legal services to be rendered to Metro Cebu Water District (MCWD), this Office hereby confirms the designation of AGCC SALVADOR A. CAMANIAN, JR., as detailed/in house counsel of Metro Cebu Water District, Cebu City.

It is understood that AGCC SALVADOR A. CAMANIAN, JR., shall render additional or special tasks such as administrative investigation/hearing and other designated corporate/legal assignments delegated by the Metro Cebu Water District. Pursuant to Sec. 6 of executive Order No. 878, the said lawyer is allowed to receive reimbursable and/or additional compensation and privileges as may be granted to him by Metro Cebu Water District.

This Office Order takes effect immediately. HAaScT

(Sgd.) AGNES VST DEVANADERAGovernment Corporate Counsel

Consequently, the MCWD Board of Directors issued resolutions in 1996 and 2006, approving the grant of allowances to petitioner.

In an audit in 2007, however, COA Auditor Deborah Montejo (Auditor Montejo) issued Notice of Disallowance No. 2007-008-101 (2005-2006) disallowing petitioner's allowances for 2005 and 2006, totalling to P138,752.00. Auditor Montejo ruled that OGCC lawyers are not entitled to additional compensation/allowances unless they are assigned/designated as corporate officers in concurrent capacity in the agency to which they are assigned and with the approval of the GCC. 4

Upon appeal, the notice of disallowance was affirmed by the COA Legal Services Sector (LSS). 5 The LSS noted that petitioner should have been assigned or designated as corporate officer by the GCC to entitle him to additional compensation, absence of which, the lawyering for the corporation other than his assignment/designation is considered as his regular function. Moreover, the LSS ruled that petitioner cannot involve COA Decision Nos. 96-362, 94-040, and 97-637 which decisions allowed OGCC lawyers to receive additional compensation, because said decisions were promulgated prior to COA-Office of the General Counsel (OGC) Opinion No. 2001-001 dated 14 February 2001, which categorically states as a requirement for the availment of additional compensation by the OGCC lawyers from the unit/agency of their assignment, that the former should be unequivocally assigned or designated as corporate officer by the GCC. 6

Upon further appeal, the ruling of the LSS was affirmed by the COA Adjudication and Settlement Board (ASB). 7 The ASB ruled that the three COA decisions are not applicable to petitioner because in the said decisions, all the conditions for additional allowances were met: exigency of the service, GCC approval of the assignment or designation, and OGCC lawyer is assigned/designated to perform additional or special task in any of the client corporation. In petitioner's case, however, the ASB observed that his designation was not for a specific and particular case. Petitioner was detailed as in-house counsel of MCWD. Although Office Order No. 141, qualified such designation as "in addition to his regular legal services being rendered" to MCWD, and directed him to "render additional or special tasks such as administrative investigation/hearing and other designated corporate/legal assignments delegated by the MCWD," still, these qualifications did not actually provide for a specific case for petitioner to handle, but merely a generalized and prospective authority to handle future administrative investigations and other legal assignments that may be delegated by the MCWD. In the meantime that there are no such administrative cases or other legal work, petitioner would be acting as the MCWD in-house counsel, which is just another term for a legal counsel and tantamount to the rendition of regular legal work. 8

Undeterred, petitioner appealed to the COA Proper itself. The COA, however, affirmed the ASB and ruled that petitioner's designation was not for a specific and particular case.

Hence, the present petition for certiorari raising the following issues: 9

A. WHETHER COA GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE 16 APRIL 2010 ASB DECISION 2010-042 SUSTAINING ND 2007-008-101 (2005-2006) DISALLOWING HIS ALLOWANCES AS DETAILED/IN-HOUSE COUNSEL OF MCWD, BY VIRTUE OF OFFICE ORDER 141 PURSUANT TO EO 878.

B. WHETHER COA GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT COA DECISIONS 96-362, 94-040 AND 97-637, GIVING AUTHORITY TO OGCC LAWYERS TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION OR ALLOWANCES FROM CLIENT GOVERNMENT OWNED CORPORATIONS, CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE DESIGNATION OF ATTY. CAMANIAN AT MCWD.

We dismiss the petition.

Section 6 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 878 provides:

SECTION 6. When the exigency of the service so requires, any member of the legal staff of the OGCC may be assigned or designated in a concurrent capacity to act as corporate officer of the government owned or controlled corporations being serviced by the OGCC, provided that the GCC approves the assignment or designation. Whenever any member of the legal staff of the OGCC is assigned/designated to perform additional or special task in any of the client corporations, he is allowed to receive such additional compensation and privileges as may be granted them by the government corporations concerned. HIAEaC

As such, three conditions must be met for purposes of claiming additional compensation: (1) that exigency of the service so requires; (2) that the GCC approves the assignment or designation; and (3) that the OGCC lawyer is assigned/designated to perform additional or special task in any of the client corporation.

As correctly found by the COA, petitioner's designation as in-house counsel of MCWD, while such designation was "in addition to his regular legal services rendered, including special tasks such as administrative investigation/hearing and other designated corporate/legal assignments delegated by the MCWD," this designation does not provide for a specific case for petitioner to handle. At best, such designation is a general and prospective authority to handle future administrative investigations and other legal assignments. And without these administrative investigations, petitioner serves only as in-house counsel of MCWD, rendering regular legal work, which is not what is envisioned in Sec. 6 of E.O. No. 878.

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission of Audit, the present petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED." (adv102)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 22-27.

2. Id. at 28.

3. Id. at 5-6.

4. Id. at 23.

5. Id. at 68-72; LSS Decision No. 2009-289.

6. Id. at 70.

7. Id. at 94-98; ASB Decision No. 2010-042.

8. Id. at 96-97.

9. Id. at 8.