Maniego v. Commission on Audit

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 228593. July 27, 2021.]

JENAROSE B. MANIEGO, petitioner, vs.THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, MA. MILEGUAS M. LEYNO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGION 3, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, CHONA P. LAXAMANA, HEAD, AUDIT GROUP F, AND MARILOU J. GABA, STATE AUDITOR III, OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR, MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, PROVINCE OF BULACAN, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedJULY 27, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 228593 (Jenarose B. Maniego v. The Commission on Audit, Ma. Mileguas M. Leyno, Regional Director, Region 3, San Fernando, Pampanga, Chona P. Laxamana, Head, Audit Group F, and Marilou J. Gaba, State Auditor III, Office of the Auditor, Municipality of Hagonoy, Province of Bulacan) — This Petition for Certiorari1 filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of Court, assails the Decision No. 2016-358 2 dated November 9, 2016 of the Commission on Audit (COA) Proper, which affirmed the Decision No. 2014-15 3 dated February 17, 2014 of the COA Regional Office 3 (RO3) of San Fernando, Pampanga.

FACTS

On March 1, 2010, petitioner Jenarose B. Maniego (Maniego) was appointed as a Rural Health Physician in the Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulacan — a position with Salary Grade (SG) 24. 4 Since her appointment, she had been receiving Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) at the rate of P9,900.00 per month until it was reduced to P2,200.00 in August 2013 in compliance with Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM) No. 2013-006-101(13) 5 dated July 29, 2013. 6 The AOM apprised the municipality of the deficiencies/errors in its January to June 2013 payroll. Specifically, the AOM stated that the RATA given by the municipality to newly-appointed Rural Health Physicians like Maniego, amounting to P9,900.00 per month, exceeds the prescribed rate of P2,200.00 under Department of Budget and Management's (DBM)-Department of Health (DOH) Joint Circular No. 1 7 dated November 29, 2012, in relation to DBM Local Budget Circular (LBC) No. 103 8 dated May 15, 2013. 9 Hence, the return of the RATA overpayments to Rural Health Physicians from January to June 2013 and any excess paid beyond that period was recommended. 10

As the recommendation remained unheeded, Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2013-001-101 (2013) 11 dated August 14, 2013 was issued, which includes disallowance of an aggregate amount of P53,900.00, representing the excess P7,700.00 per month of RATA paid to Maniego from January to July 2013. The ND directed Maniego to immediately settle the transaction.

Aggrieved, Maniego appealed the ND to the COA RO3. Maniego argued that under Section 22 12 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7305, 13 she is entitled to the same RATA given to municipal agriculturists, municipal planning and development officers and budget officers. Maniego further cited Section 45 14 of RA No. 10352 15 or the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2013, and posited that she is entitled to the same RATA enjoyed by officials with SG 24 like a Department Head of a Municipal Government or at least an Assistant Department Head of a municipality with SG 22, which positions were determined to be equivalent to an Assistant Bureau Regional Director and Division Chief under DBM LBC No. 103. 16 Maniego further contended that, on grounds of local autonomy and adherence to the delegating statute, the provisions on RATA under RA No. 7305 and RA No. 10352 should prevail over the lower RATA rate of P2,200.00 prescribed under DBM LBC No. 103 for Rural Health Physicians. 17

COA RO3 RULING

The COA RO3 denied the appeal in its Decision No. 2014-15. 18 It ruled that DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1 and DBM LBC No. 103 have the force and effect of law until declared null and void by a competent authority. Maniego's claim of good faith was likewise rejected because she was aware of the RATA rate under DBM LBC No. 103 in as early as January 2013, but insisted on receiving a rate higher than that prescribed under the DBM circular, thus:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, [ND] No. 2013-001-101 (2013) dated August 14, 2013, x x x is hereby AFFIRMED. 19 (Emphases in the original.)

Maniego appealed to the COA Proper. 20

COA PROPER RULING

In its Decision No. 2016-358, 21 the COA Proper ruled that DBM LBC No. 103 and DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1 are not in conflict with RA No. 7305. Maniego's claim of good faith was also denied, citing Section 43, 22 Chapter 5, Book VI of the Executive Order (EO) No. 282 23 or the Administrative Code of 1987, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, [COA RO3] Decision No. 2014-15 dated February 17, 2014, sustaining [ND] No. 2013-001-101 (2013) dated August 14, 2013, on the payment of [RATA] of Rural Health Physicians, x x x Dr. [Maniego], of the Municipal Government of Hagonoy, for the period of January to July 2013 in the total amount of [P53,900.00], is hereby AFFIRMED. 24 (Emphases in the original.)

Without filing a motion for reconsideration, Maniego filed this petition, insisting on her entitlement to RATA at the rate of P9,900.00 per month, alleged to be the same rate given to local officials with SG 24. 25 She argues that DBM LBC No. 103 and DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1 are invalid for being contrary to RA No. 7305 and the principle of local autonomy. For Maniego, local appropriations, not the DBM and DOH circulars, apply to local government unit (LGU) officials and employees, whose compensation and allowances are sourced from local funds. 26 She also maintains that, in any case, she should not be ordered to refund the excess of the P9,900.00-RATA as she received them in good faith. 27

On the other hand, the COA Proper, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), stands firm in the propriety of the ND and the validity of the DBM and DOH circulars upon which the ND is based. Maniego's claim that the position occupied by Rural Health Physicians is equivalent to a Department Head or Assistant Department Head of a municipality has no legal basis as in fact, Section 2.6 28 of DBM LBC No. 79 29 dated April 1, 2005 explicitly states that the monthly RATA rate of Rural Health Physicians remains at P2,200.00 as 'they are not nor (sic) equivalent to Municipal Government Department [Head] or Municipal Government Assistant Department Head positions.' 30

ISSUE

Whether the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining ND No. 2013-001-101 (2013).

RULING

The petition is bereft of merit.

We first resolve the procedural matter. The rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari to grant the court or tribunal the opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it through the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case. The rule, however, admits of exceptions. 31 This case falls under one of the jurisprudentially-recognized exceptions, i.e., the questions presented before us have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court or tribunal, or are the same as those raised and passed upon below. Hence, we proceed to resolve the substantive issues raised in this certiorari proceedings.

Propriety of the Disallowance

The case involves the disallowance of RATA overpayments to a Rural Health Physician. RATA is a collective term for two distinct but complementary allowances, — Representation Allowance (RA) and Transportation Allowance (TA) — given to select government officials to cover related expenses incidental to and in connection with the actual performance of their respective functions. 32 It is one of those additional allowances, which was expressly excluded in the standardized salary under Section 12 33 of RA No. 6758 34 or the 'Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.' As a non-integrated allowance, it must be specifically granted by law because '[n]o money shall be paid out of any public treasury or depository except in pursuance of an appropriation law or other specific statutory authority.' 35 Any disbursement of government funds that is contrary to law shall be disallowed for being an illegal expenditure. 36 Well-settled is the rule that the burden of proving the validity or legality of the grant of allowances or benefits is with the government agency or entity granting the allowance or benefit, or the employee claiming them. 37 As will be discussed, Maniego palpably failed to justify her entitlement to RATA in the amount of P9,900.00. As well, the Municipality of Hagonoy's act of discontinuing the grant of the P9,900.00-RATA to Maniego in compliance with the AOM is antithetical to Maniego's claim.

As a Rural Health Physician, Maniego's entitlement to RATA is derived from Section 22 of RA No. 7305, 38viz.:

SEC. 22. Subsistence Allowance. — Public health workers who are required to render service within the premises of hospitals, sanitaria, health infirmaries, main health centers, rural health units and barangay health stations, or clinics, and other health-related establishments in order to make their services available at any and all times, shall be entitled to full subsistence allowance of three (3) meals which may be computed in accordance with prevailing circumstances as determined by the Secretary of Health in consultation with the Management-Health Worker's Consultative Councils, as established under Section 33 of this Act: provided, that representation and travel allowance shall be given to rural health physicians as enjoyed by municipal agriculturists, municipal planning and development officers and budget officers. (Emphasis supplied.)

Pursuant to Section 35 39 of RA No. 7305, the Department of Health (DOH), in collaboration with various government agencies and health workers' organizations, promulgated its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) in November 2009. With regard to the RATA, the Revised IRR provides:

SEC. 3. Salary and Salary Scale. — Republic Act 6758 shall apply in determining the salary scale of public health workers, except that the benchmark for Rural Health Physicians shall be upgraded from Grade 20 to Grade 24 and that they shall now be entitled to Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA).

xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 7. Other additional compensation:

7.4. Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) — Municipal Health Officers (MHO) and Rural Health Physicians (RHP) shall be entitled to collect RATA, provided that said MHO or RHP is actually performing the duties and responsibilities of the said position.

xxx xxx xxx

The Revised IRR also laid down certain guidelines to be observed in the payment of the RATA. 40

On July 28, 2008, the Fourteenth Congress issued Joint Resolution No. 4, entitled 'Joint Resolution Authorizing the President of the Philippines to Modify the Compensation and Position Classification System of Civilian Personnel and the Base Pay Schedule of Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government, and for other Purposes,' which was approved on June 17, 2009. Item 6 41 of Joint Resolution No. 4 provides for the DBM's authority, 'in coordination with the agencies concerned, [to] determine the qualifications, conditions and rates in the grant of [the benefits under RA No. 7305].' 42 The provision further instructs that 'the consultative councils, departments and officials previously authorized to issue the [IRR] of Magna Carta benefits shall no longer exercise said function relative to the grant of such benefits.' 43

On November 29, 2012, pursuant to the Congress' Joint Resolution No. 4, the DBM and the DOH issued DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1, 44 Series of 2012, pertinent portions of which states:

14.0 Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) for a Rural Health Physician

Section 22 of R.A. No. 7305 provides that 'representation and travel allowance shall be given to rural health physicians as enjoyed by municipal agriculturists, municipal planning and development officers and budget officers.'

Considering the intent of the foregoing provision, the previously established rules under sub-item 3.1.5 of Local Budget Circular No. 59-A dated December 8, 1997, and sub-section 7.4 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 7305, and the need to observe compensation equity among positions of Rural Health Physician, the grant of their RATA shall be governed by the following rules:

14.1 The incumbent of a devolved position of Rural Health Physician in an LGU shall be entitled to RATA in the total amount of [P]2,200.00 per month, which he/she received as of the devolution to an LGU, consistent with the policy on no diminution of benefits of devolved personnel as provided under Executive Order No. 503 issued on January 22, 1992.

14.2 Upon appointment to an LGU organic position, the former devolved Rural Health Physician shall no longer be entitled to the [P]2,200.00 per month RATA but to the RATA for his/her new position, if any.

14.3 A new appointee to the position of Rural Health Physician shall also be entitled to RATA in the total amount of [P]2,200.00 per month.

14.4 The grant of RATA to Rural Health Physicians shall be governed by the same rules and regulations on the grant thereof to qualified local government officials and employees prescribed under Local Budget Circular No. 79 and as amended. (Emphases supplied.)

DBM LBC No. 79 45 dated April 1, 2005, in turn, provides:

2.0 Rules and Regulations

2.1 The local chief executive, with the approval of the Sanggunian may authorize the increase in the monthly commutable RATA for the following officials of provincial, city and municipal governments:

a. Local Chief Executive

b. Local Vice-Chief Executive

c. Sanggunian Members

d. Department Heads

e. Assistant Department Heads

f. Chiefs of Hospital

g. Division Chiefs in Special Cities

2.2 For purposes of determining the allowable monthly RATA rates for each type of allowance, the said LGU officials are equated to the national government officials entitled to RATA under the annual GAA as shown in Annex 'A.'

2.3 The rate of RATA authorized in the LGU shall vary depending on the income classification of said LGU. The percentage application of the RATA authorized in the GAA for a given position/rank in the national government shall be adopted based on the income classification of an LGU as shown in Annex 'B.'

xxx xxx xxx

2.6 The total monthly RATA of Rural Health Physician authorized under RA No. 7305, 'The Magna Carta of Public Health Workers,' and of a devolved Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO) authorized prior to devolution shall remain at the rate of [P]2,200.[00.] The RATA rates of said positions are excluded from the herein adjustment as they are not nor (sic) equivalent to Municipal Government Department or Municipal Government Assistant Department Head positions. MAOs appointed after the devolution are no longer entitled to RATA. (Emphases supplied.)

Annex 'A' 46 referred to in Item 2.2 of DBM LBC No. 79 equates a Municipal Government Department Head I with SG 24 of a 1st Class Municipality outside Metro Manila, like Hagonoy, to a Director I (Assistant Bureau Regional Director) of the national government with SG 25; while a Municipal Government Assistant Department Head I with SG 22 is equated to a Division Chief with SG 24 of the national government. On the other hand, Annex 'B' 47 referred to in Item 2.3 of DBM LBC No. 79 enumerates the maximum monthly RATA per position title and SG effective April 1, 2005. For a 1st Class Municipality outside Metro Manila, a Municipal Government Department Head I with SG 24 is entitled to P3,600.00, while a Municipal Government Assistant Department Head I with SG 22 to P2,700.00.

For fiscal year 2013, Section 45 48 of the GAA or RA No. 10352 provided new rates of RATA, as well as policies for their grant as follows:

SEC. 45. Representation and Transportation Allowances. — The following officials while in the actual performance of their respective functions, are hereby authorized monthly commutable representation and transportation allowances charged against appropriations authorized for the purpose at the rates indicated below:

xxx xxx xxx

(f) [P]7,500[.00] for Assistant Bureau Regional Directors; and

(g) [P]5,000[.00] for Chief of Divisions, identified as such in the Personal Services Itemization and Plantilla of Personnel.

The foregoing rates shall apply for each type of allowance.

No amount of representation or transportation allowances, whether commutable or reimbursable, which exceed the rates authorized under this section may be granted to the foregoing officials. Previous administrative authorizations inconsistent with the rates and conditions specified herein shall no longer be valid and payment shall not be allowed. The transportation allowance, whether in full or partial amounts, authorized herein shall not be granted to officials who are assigned or presently use government motor transportation.

The DBM shall determine other officials in the government that are of equivalent ranks with the above cited officials who may likewise be entitled to representation and transportation allowances. The representation and transportation allowances of local government officials who are of equivalent rank to the foregoing officials, as determined by the DBM, shall be at the same percentages as the salary rates under R.A. No. 6758, as amended, and subject to the budgetary limitations under R.A. No. 7160. (Emphases supplied.)

Concomitantly, DBM LBC No. 103 49 was issued, providing for the similar equivalent positions in the LGU and the national government as enumerated in Annex 'A' of DBM LBC No. 79 above-cited. 50 The amounts of the maximum monthly RATA per position title and SG as provided in Annex 'B' 51 of DBM LBC No. 79 were, however, increased in that: for 1st Class Municipalities outside Metro Manila, a Municipal Government Department Head I with SG 24 is entitled to P6,750.00, while a Municipal Government Assistant Department Head I with SG 22 to P4,500.00. aScITE

Clearly, none of these laws, rules, and regulations supports Maniego's claim that she is entitled to RATA in the amount of P9,900.00 per month.

First. Section 22 52 of RA No. 7305 did not require the grant of RATA to Rural Health Physicians at the same rate given to municipal agriculturists, municipal planning and development officers and budget officers. The provision merely states that Rural Health Physicians are also entitled to RATA like the enumerated local officers. As mandated under Section 35 of RA No. 7305, in relation to the Congress Joint Resolution No. 4, the determination of the qualifications, conditions, and rates in the grant of the Magna Carta benefits primarily devolves upon the DOH and the DBM. And clearly, under the relevant issuances above-cited, Rural Health Physicians are entitled only to P2,200.00 per month.

Even if we subscribe to Maniego's position that she is entitled to the same rate of RATA as those enjoyed by the officers enumerated in Section 22 of RA No. 7305, Maniego failed to adduce proof that those officers are granted RATA of P9,900.00 per month. Maniego did not present any document such as copy of Hagonoy's payroll or, better yet, duly-enacted appropriations 53 to show that Hagonoy's municipal agriculturists, municipal planning and development officers and budget officers were given P9,900.00 RATA per month. In this petition, Maniego presented an irrelevant document, i.e., a copy of Paombong Municipal Payroll, 54 which shows that Paombong's Rural Health Physicians and Municipal Health Officer were given a monthly RATA of P5,740.00, which is still less than Maniego's claim.

Second. There is no law or issuance to support Maniego's claim that her position is equivalent to that of a Municipal Government Department Head or Assistant Department Head to entitle her to the same amount of RATA. We stress that the Congress, through RA 6758, 55 delegated to the DBM the administration of the Compensation and Position Classification System. 56 As well, the GAA of 2013 or RA No. 10352 mandated the DBM to determine which officials are entitled to RATA as those granted to their equivalent national government officials specifically enumerated in the GAA. 57 To that end, DBM LBC No. 103 enumerated the LGU officials of equivalent rank to those of national government positions as listed in RA No. 10352. Notably, a Rural Health Physician is not among those with an equivalent rank to a national government position. Hence, a Rural Health Physician's RATA cannot be equated to any of those enumerated officers' RATA. Instead, Item 13.1 of DBM LBC No. 103 specifically provides that with regard to the Rural Health Physician's RATA, DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1 shall govern. Item 14.3 of the DBM-DOH Joint Circular prescribes RATA in the amount of P2,200.00 to a newly-appointed Rural Health Physician like Maniego. Further, it is noteworthy that Item No. 2.6 of DBM LBC No. 79 prescribed the same rate of RATA for Rural Health Physicians, and expressly stated that their position is not equivalent to a Municipal Government Department Head or Assistant Department Head.

Maniego's claim still fails even if her position is equated to a Municipal Government Department Head or Assistant Department Head. Item No. 6.1 of DBM LBC No. 103 authorized a maximum monthly RATA of P6,750.00 to a Department Head and P4,500.00 to an Assistant Department Head of a 1st Class Municipality. Notably, Item 6.2 of DBM LBC No. 103 was emphatic in disallowing the grant of RATA to LGU officials, in excess of the authorized rates.

In sum, Maniego failed to substantiate her claim that she is entitled to RATA in the amount of P9,900.00. Neither does the Municipality of Hagonoy support Maniego's claim as it immediately discontinued the grant of P9,900.00 upon receipt of the AOM to adhere to the governing rules and regulations. In view of this, Maniego's argument on the invalidity of DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1 and DBM LBC No. 103 for violating the principle of local autonomy deserves scant consideration. There is no local act to be upheld on the ground of local autonomy in this case. In any event, it is settled that the exercise of local autonomy remains to be the subject of the power of control of the Congress and the power of supervision of the President. 58 As discussed, the Congress has validly delegated to the DBM, in coordination with the agencies concerned, the determination of the qualifications, conditions, and rates of the grant of the benefits under RA No. 7305, upon which Maniego's RATA is based. 59 Thus, the compensating-power of the LGU in Section 447 of RA No. 7160 or The Local Government Code cannot prevail over the above-cited pertinent provisions of RA No. 6758, RA No. 7305, RA No. 10352, and the Fourteenth Congress' Joint Circular No. 4. 60 Also, as correctly held by the COA Proper:

DBM LBC No. 103 and DBM[-]DOH [Joint Circular] No. 1, s. of 2012, upon which the disallowance was based, are not in conflict with the provision of RA No. 7305. In fact, DBM-DOH [Joint Circular] No. 1, s. 2012 was issued to implement RA No. 7305, in compliance with Section 35 thereof. In the observance of compensation equity among positions of [Rural Health Physicians], an amount of [P]2,200.00 was determined as the RATA rate of the incumbent of a devolved position of [Rural Health Physician] x x x under Item 14.1 of DBM-DOH [Joint Circular] No. 1, s. 2012. This was reiterated under DBM LBC No. 103 which prescribes that the RATA for an incumbent of a devolved position of [Rural Health Physician] ([SG] 24), shall be governed by the pertinent rules under the DBM and DOH [Joint Circular] No. 1, s. 2012, dated November 29, 2012. 61

Liability to Return

The COA Proper also correctly upheld Maniego's liability to return the excess amount of RATA given to her. We clarified in the recent case of Madera v. Commission on Audit62 that the recipients' good faith or bad faith is inconsequential in the determination of their liability in disallowed transactions. This is because their liability is grounded upon the principles of solutio indebiti63 and unjust enrichment. 64 The recipients' liability to refund disallowed amounts is warranted due to the receipt of public funds without valid basis, to rectify the prejudice caused to the government by the undue disbursement of public funds. By way of exception, the recipient's liability may be excused only (1) upon a showing that the questioned benefits were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered; or (2) when excused by the Court on the basis of undue prejudice, social justice considerations, and other bona fide exceptions depending on the purpose, nature, and amount of the disallowed benefit or incentive relative to the attending circumstances, 65 because under these circumstances, the concept of unjust enrichment or mistake in payment is negated. To obviate the undue deviation from the general rule on the recipients' liability, we have expounded in Abellanosa v. Commission on Audit66 that the exceptions are 'limited to disbursements adequately supported by factual and legal bas[e]s, but were nonetheless validly disallowed x x x on account of procedural infirmities.' 67 Similarly, factors such as 'ostensible statutory or legal cover' for the grant and its 'clear, direct, and reasonable connection to the actual performance of the recipients' official work and functions' must be considered in excusing the recipients' liability on equitable grounds. 68 In this case, the grant of RATA in the amount of P9,900.00 to Maniego has no factual and legal basis. We also find no genuine or bona fide equitable consideration relevant to the nature and purpose of RATA that would justify Maniego to retain the RATA overpayments. Accordingly, no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed against the COA Proper in sustaining Maniego's liability.

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. Decision No. 2016-358 dated November 9, 2016 of the Commission on Audit Proper is AFFIRMED. Petitioner Jenarose B. Maniego is liable to return the excess Representation and Transportation Allowances in the aggregate amount of Fifty-Three Thousand Pesos (P53,900.00) that she received." (127)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MARIFE M. LOMIBAO-CUEVASClerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-20.

2.Id. at 21-27.

3.Id. at 47-49.

4.Id. at 28.

5.Id. at 30-32.

6.Id. at 5-8.

7. Rules and Regulations on the Grant of Compensation-Related Magna Carta Benefits to Public Health Workers (PHWs).

8. Amended Rules and Regulations on the Grant of Representation and Transportation Allowances.

9.Rollo, p. 31.

10.Id. at 32.

11.Id. at 33-34.

12. SEC. 22. Subsistence Allowance. — Public health workers who are required to render service within the premises of hospitals, sanitaria, health infirmaries, main health centers, rural health units and barangay health stations, or clinics, and other health-related establishments in order to make their services available at any and all times, shall be entitled to full subsistence allowance of three (3) meals which may be computed in accordance with prevailing circumstances as determined by the Secretary of Health in consultation with the Management-Health Worker's Consultative Councils, as established under Section 33 of this Act: provided, that representation and travel allowance shall be given to rural health physicians as enjoyed by municipal agriculturists, municipal planning and development officers and budget officers. (Emphasis supplied.)

13. Entitled "THE MAGNA CARTA OF PUBLIC HEALTH WORKERS"; Approved on March 26, 1992.

14. SEC. 45. Representation and Transportation Allowances. — The following officials while in the actual performance of their respective functions, are hereby authorized monthly commutable representation and transportation allowances charged against appropriations authorized for the purpose at the rates indicated below:

xxx xxx xxx

The DBM shall determine other officials in the government that are of equivalent ranks with the above-cited officials who may likewise be entitled to representation and transportation allowances. The representation and transportation allowances of local government officials who are of equivalent rank to the foregoing officials, as determined by the DBM, shall be at the same percentages as the salary rates under R.A. No. 6758, as amended, and subject to the budgetary limitations under R.A. No. 7160. (Emphasis supplied.)

15. Entitled "AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY-ONE, TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"; Approved on December 19, 2012.

16. See Annex "A" of DBM Local Budget Circular No. 103 issued on May 15, 2013.

17.Rollo, pp. 14-15.

18.Id. at 47-49.

19.Id. at 49.

20.Id. at 50-74.

21.Id. at 21-27.

22. SEC. 43. Liability for Illegal Expenditures. — Every expenditure or obligation authorized or incurred in violation of the provisions of this Code or of the general and special provisions contained in the annual General and other Appropriations Act shall be void. Every payment made in violation of the said provisions shall be illegal and every official and employee authorizing or making such payment, or taking part therein, and every person receiving such payment shall be jointly and severally liable to the government for the full amount so paid or received.

23. INSTITUTING THE "ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987"; Approved on July 25, 1987.

24.Rollo, p. 26.

25.Id. at 11-12.

26.Id. at 14-15.

27.Id. at 16-17.

28. 2.6 The total monthly RATA of Rural Health Physician authorized under RA No. 7305, "The Magna Carta of Public Health Workers," and of a devolved Municipal Agricultural Officer (MAO) authorized prior to devolution shall remain at the rate of [P]2,200.[00.] The RATA rates of said positions are excluded from the herein adjustment as they are not nor (sic) equivalent to Municipal Government Department or Municipal Government Assistant Department Head positions. MAOs appointed after the devolution are no longer entitled to RATA.

29. Guidelines for the Implementation of the Revised Rates of Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) in Local Government Units (LGUs).

30.Supra note 28.

31. "(1) where the order is a patent nullity, such as when the court a quo had no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question, and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (5) where the petitioner was deprived of due process, and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent, and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (6) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (7) where the proceeding was ex parte, or the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (8) where the issue raised is one purely of law, or where public interest is involved"; (Emphasis supplied.) See Estalilla v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 217448, September 10, 2019.

32. LBC No. 103, Item 3.0.

33. SEC. 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. — All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.

Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary of said official or employee and shall be paid by the National Government.

34. AN ACT PRESCRIBING A REVISED COMPENSATION AND POSITION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IN THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; Approved on August 21, 1989.

35. PD No. 1445, otherwise known as the "Ordaining and Instituting a Government Auditing Code of the Philippines," Approved on June 11, 1978, Sec. 4 (1).

36. COA CIRCULAR NO. 85-55A, AMENDED RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE PREVENTION OF IRREGULAR, UNNECESSARY, EXCESSIVE OR EXTRAVAGANT EXPENDITURES OR USES OF FUNDS AND PROPERTY dated September 8, 1985; COA CIRCULAR NO. 2009-006, PRESCRIBING THE USE OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ON SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS dated September 15, 2009, Sec. 10.1 and Sec. 10.1.1.

37.Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit, 750 Phil. 288, 330-331 (2015).

38.Supra note 13.

39. SEC. 35. Rules and Regulations. — The Secretary of Health after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government as well as professional and health workers' organizations or unions, shall formulate and prepare the necessary rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this Act. Rules and regulations issued pursuant to this Section shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in a newspaper of general circulation.

40. The following guidelines shall be observed in the payment of RATA:

a. RATA shall be enjoyed by an RHP wherein a government vehicle is not assigned for his/her use in the discharge of his/her duties. In case a vehicle is assigned to the MHO or RHP, he/she shall only be entitled to representation allowance (RA);

b. Pursuant to National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 67, issued by DBM dated 01 January 1992, an MHO or RHP who is authorized to attend a training course, scholarship, seminar or any other similar activity, which is tantamount to the performance of his regular duties and responsibilities as determined by the Local Chief Executive (LCE) concerned shall be authorized to continue to collect RATA on a reimbursement basis;

c. Any government physician officially designated by the Head of Agency/LCEs as MHO or RHP shall be entitled to RATA;

d. An MHO or RHP who is on vacation, such as maternity leave of absence with or without pay for one full calendar month shall not be entitled to RATA for that period;

e. An MHO or RHP who is on full time detail with another organizational unit and performs as such, shall be entitled to RATA. But if he/she does not discharge the responsibilities of the position he/she shall not be entitled to RATA; and

f. A government physician who shall take over the position of RHP or MHO and performing the equivalent function shall be entitled to RATA for the duration of the detail.

41. (6) Magna Carta Benefits — Within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Joint Resolution, the DBM is hereby authorized to issue the necessary guidelines, rules and regulations on the grant of Magna Carta benefits authorized for specific officials and employees in the government to determine those that may be categorized in the Total Compensation Framework.

Nothing in this Joint Resolution shall be interpreted be reduce, diminish or, in any way, alter the benefits provided for in existing laws on Magna Carta benefits for specific officials and employees in government, regardless of whether said benefits have been already received or have yet to be implemented.

The DBM, in coordination with the agencies concerned, shall determine the qualifications, conditions and rates in the grant of said benefits. Accordingly, the consultative councils, departments and officials previously authorized to issue the implementing rules and regulations of Magna Carta benefits shall no longer exercise said function relative to the grant of such benefits.

42.Id.

43.Id.

44.Supra note 7.

45.Supra note 28.

46. See DBM Local Budget Circular No. 79 dated April 1, 2005.

47.Id.

48.Supra note 14.

49.Supra note 8.

50. See Annex "A" of DBM Local Budget Circular No. 103 dated May 15, 2013.

51. See DBM Local Budget Circular No. 103 dated May 15, 2013.

52.Supra in-text and note 13.

53. RA No. 7160, SEC. 447. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. — (a) The sangguniang bayan, as the legislative body of the municipality, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the municipality as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:

(1) Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and effective municipal government, and in this connection shall: x x x

(viii) Determine the positions and salaries, wages, allowances and other emoluments and benefits of officials and employees paid wholly or mainly from municipal funds and provide for expenditures necessary for the proper conduct of programs, projects, services, and activities of the municipal government; x x x.

54.Rollo, p. 73.

55. SEC. 6. Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades of the Compensation and Position Classification System. — All positions in the government covered under Section 4 hereof shall be allocated to their proper position titles and salary grades in accordance with the Index of Occupational Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades of the Compensation and Position Classification System which shall be prepared by the DBM.

56. See Rodrigo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (Resolution), 369 Phil. 103, 108-109 (1999).

57. RA No. 10352, SEC. 45, supra note 14.

58. See Dadole v. Commission on Audit, 441 Phil. 532, 542-543 (2002).

59. Joint Resolution No. 4, Item No. 6, supra note 39.

60. See Madera v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 244128, September 8, 2020.

61.Rollo, p. 24.

62.Supra note 58.

63. Art. 2154. If something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.

64. Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

65.Abellanosa, et al. v. Commission on Audit (Resolution), G.R. No. 185806, November 17, 2020.

66.Id.

67. Citing Reflections of Justice Caguioa on Abellanosa v. Commission on Audit, id.

68.Abellanosa, et al. v. Commission on Audit (Resolution), id.