EN BANC.
.
JUDGE TOMAS C.
LEYNES,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
143596
December 11, 2003
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
THE COMMISSION ON
AUDIT (COA),HON. GREGORIA
S.
ONG, DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON
AUDIT
AND
HON. SALVACION
DALISAY, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
Before us is a Petition
for
Certiorari under Rule 65
in relation to Section 2, Rule 64 of the
Rules
of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the decision[1]
dated September 14, 1999 of the Commission on Audit (COA), affirming
the
resolution of COA Regional Director Gregoria S. Ong dated March 29,
1994
which in turn affirmed the opinion dated October 19, 1993 of the
Provincial
Auditor of Oriental Mindoro, Salvacion M. Dalisay. All three denied the
grant of P1,600 monthly allowance to petitioner Judge Tomas C. Leynes
by
the Municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
Petitioner Judge Tomas
C. Leynes who, at present, is the presiding judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40 was formerly
assigned
to the Municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro as the sole presiding
judge
of the Municipal Trial Court thereof. As such, his salary and
representation
and transportation allowance (RATA) were drawn from the budget of the
Supreme
Court. In addition, petitioner received a monthly allowance of P944
from
the local funds[2]
of the Municipality of Naujan starting 1984.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 15, 1993, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan, through Resolution No. 057, sought the
opinion
of the Provincial Auditor and the Provincial Budget Officer regarding
any
budgetary limitation on the grant of a monthly allowance by the
municipality
to petitioner judge. On May 7, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan unanimously
approved Resolution No. 101 increasing petitioner judge's monthly
allowance
from P944 to P1,600 (an increase of P656) starting May 1993.[4]
By virtue of said resolution, the municipal government (the Municipal
Mayor
and the Sangguniang Bayan) approved a supplemental budget which was
likewise
approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Office of Provincial
Budget
and Management of Oriental Mindoro. In 1994, the Municipal Government
of
Naujan again provided for petitioner judge's P1,600 monthly allowance
in
its annual budget which was again approved by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
and the Office of Provincial Budget and Management of Oriental Mindoro.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 17, 1994,
Provincial Auditor Salvacion M. Dalisay sent a letter to the Municipal
Mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan directing them to stop the
payment
of the P1,600 monthly allowance or RATA to petitioner judge and to
require
the immediate refund of the amounts previously paid to the latter. She
opined that the Municipality of Naujan could not grant RATA to
petitioner
judge in addition to the RATA the latter was already receiving from the
Supreme Court. Her directive was based on the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 36,
RA No. 7645, General Appropriations Act of 1993
Representation and
Transportation
Allowances. The following officials and those of equivalent rank as may
be determined by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) while in
the actual performance of their respective functions are hereby granted
monthly commutable representation and transportation allowances payable
from the programmed appropriations provided for their respective
offices,
not exceeding the rates indicated below x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
National
Compensation
Circular No. 67 dated January 1, 1992, of the Department of Budget and
Management
Subject:
Representation
and Transportation Allowances of National Government Officials and
Employees x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
4. Funding Source:
In
all cases, commutable and reimbursable RATA shall be paid from the
amount
appropriated for the purpose and other personal services savings of the
agency or project from where the officials and employees covered under
this Circular draw their salaries. No one shall be allowed to collect
RATA
from more than one source.[6]
(Emphasis
supplied.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner judge
appealed
to COA Regional Director Gregoria S. Ong who, however, upheld the
opinion
of Provincial Auditor Dalisay and who added that Resolution No. 101,
Series
of 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan failed to comply with
Section
3 of Local Budget Circular No. 53 dated September 1, 1993 outlining the
conditions for the grant of allowances to judges and other national
officials
or employees by the local government units (LGUs). Section 3 of the
said
budget circular provides that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 3.
Allowances.
— LGUs may grant allowances/additional compensation to the national
government
officials/employees assigned to their locality at rates authorized by
law,
rules and regulations and subject to the following preconditions:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a. That
the
annual income or finances of the municipality, city or province as
certified
by the Accountant concerned will allow the grant of the
allowances/additional
compensation without exceeding the general limitations for personal
services
under Section 325 of RA 7160;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b. That the
budgetary
requirements under Section 324 of RA 7160 including the full
requirement
of RA 6758 have been satisfied and provided fully in the budget as
certified
by the Budget Officer and COA representative in the LGU concerned;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c. That the LGU
has
fully implemented the devolution of personnel/functions in accordance
with
the provisions of RA 7160;
d. That the LGU
has
already created mandatory positions prescribed in RA 7160; and
e. That similar
allowances/additional
compensation are not granted by the national government to the
officials/employees
assigned to the LGU.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner judge
appealed
the unfavorable resolution of the Regional Director to the Commission
on
Audit. In the meantime, a disallowance of the payment of the P1,600
monthly
allowance to petitioner was issued. Thus he received his P1,600 monthly
allowance from the Municipality of Naujan only for the period May 1993
to January 1994.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 14, 1999,
the COA issued its decision affirming the resolution of Regional
Director
Gregoria S. Ong:
The main
issue
x x x is whether or not the Municipality of Naujan,
Oriental
Mindoro can validly provide RATA to its Municipal Judge, in addition to
that provided by the Supreme Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Generally,
the grant of (RATA) [sic] to qualified national government officials
and
employees pursuant to Section 36 of R.A. 7645 General Appropriations
Act
of 1993 and NCC No. 67 dated 01 January 1992 is subject to the
following
conditions to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
Payable
from the programmed/appropriated amount and others from personal
services
savings of the respective offices where the officials or employees draw
their salaries;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Not exceeding
the
rates prescribed by the Annual General Appropriations Act;
3.
Officials/employees
on detail with other offices or assigned to serve other offices or
agencies
shall be paid from their parent agencies;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. No one shall
be allowed
to collect RATA from more than one source.
On the other hand,
the
municipal government may provide additional allowances and other
benefits
to judges and other national government officials or employees assigned
or stationed in the municipality, provided, that the finances of the
municipality
allow the grant thereof pursuant to Section 447, Par. 1(xi), R.A. 7160,
and provided further, that similar allowance/additional compensation
are
not granted by the national government to the official/employee
assigned
to the local government unit as provided under Section 3(e) of Local
Budget
Circular No. 53, dated 01 September 1993.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The conflicting
provisions
of Section 447, Par. (1) (xi) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and
Section 36 of the General Appropriations Act of 1993 (RA 7645) have
been
harmonized by the Local Budget Circular No. 53 dated 01 September 1993,
issued by the Department of Budget and Management pursuant to its
powers
under Section 25 and Section 327 of the Local Government Code. The said
circular must be adhered to by the local government units particularly
Section 3 thereof which provides the implementing guidelines of Section
447, Par. (1) (xi) of the Local Government Code of 1991 in the grant of
allowances to national government officials/employees assigned or
stationed
in their respective local government units.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Consequently, the
subject
SB Resolution No. 101 dated 11 May 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Naujan,
Oriental Mindoro, having failed to comply with the inherent
precondition
as defined in Section 3 (e) x x x is null and void.
Furthermore,
the Honorable Judge Tomas C. Leynes, being a national government
official
is prohibited to receive additional RATA from the local government fund
pursuant to Section 36 of the General Appropriations Act (R.A. 7645 for
1993) and National Compensation Circular No. 67 dated 1 January 1992.[8]
(Emphasis
ours.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Petitioner judge filed
a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but it was denied by
the Commission in a resolution dated May 30, 2000. Aggrieved,
petitioner
filed the instant petition, raising the following assignments of error
for our consideration:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I
WHETHER OR NOT
RESOLUTION
NO. 101, SERIES OF 1993 OF NAUJAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, WHICH GRANTED
ADDITIONAL
ALLOWANCE TO THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL JUDGE OF NAUJAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO AND
INCREASING HIS CURRENT REPRESENTATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE (RATA)
TO
AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THAT RECEIVED MONTHLY BY SANGGUNIANG MEMBERS IN
PESOS: ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED (P1,600.00) EFFECTIVE 1993, IS VALID.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE
POWER
OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS TO GRANT ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES AND OTHER
BENEFITS
TO NATIONAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES STATIONED IN THEIR MUNICIPALITY IS
VERY
EXPLICIT AND UNEQUIVOCAL UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991
PARTICULARLY
SECTION 447 IN RELATION TO SECTIONS 17 AND 22 THEREOF.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE
DEPARTMENT
OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM) CAN, BY THE ISSUANCE OF BUDGET
CIRCULARS,
RESTRICT A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT FROM EXERCISING ITS GIVEN LEGISLATIVE
POWERS
OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES AND OTHER BENEFITS TO NATIONAL
EMPLOYEES
STATIONED OR ASSIGNED TO THEIR MUNICIPALITY FOR AS LONG AS THEIR
FINANCES
SO ALLOW.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991 PARTICULARLY SECTION 447(a)(1)(xi) WAS
EXPRESSLY
OR IMPLIEDLY REPEALED OR MODIFIED BY REPUBLIC ACT 7645 AND THE GENERAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1993.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
V
WHETHER OR NOT
PETITIONER
WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES GRANTED TO HIM BY THE
MUNICIPALITY OF NAUJAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO BY VIRTUE OF ITS RESOLUTION
NO.
101, SERIES OF 1993.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
POSITION OF COA
Respondent Commission
on Audit opposes the grant by the Municipality of Naujan of the P1,600
monthly allowance to petitioner Judge Leynes for the reason that the
municipality
could not grant RATA to judges in addition to the RATA already received
from the Supreme Court.[9]
Respondent bases its contention on the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. National
Compensation Circular No. 67 (hereafter NCC No. 67) dated January 1,
1992
of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) which provides that
(a)
the RATA of national officials and employees shall be payable from the
programmed appropriations or personal services savings of the agency
where
such officials or employees draw their salary and (b) no one shall be
allowed
to collect RATA from more than one source;
2. the General
Appropriations
Act of 1993 (RA 7645) which provided that the RATA of national
officials
shall be payable from the programmed appropriations of their respective
offices andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Local Budget
Circular
No. 53 (hereafter LBC No. 53) dated September 1, 1993 of the DBM which
prohibits local government units from granting allowances to national
government
officials or employees stationed in their localities when such
allowances
are also granted by the national government or are similar to the
allowances
granted by the national government to such officials or employees.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
POSITION OF
PETITIONER
Petitioner judge, on
the other hand, asserts that the municipality is expressly and
unequivocally
empowered by RA 7160 (the Local Government Code of 1991) to enact
appropriation
ordinances granting allowances and other benefits to judges stationed
in
its territory. Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of the Local Government Code of
1991
imposes only one condition, that is, "when the finances of the
municipal
government allow." The Code does not impose any other restrictions in
the
exercise of such power by the municipality. Petitioner also asserts
that
the DBM cannot amend or modify a substantive law like the Local
Government
Code of 1991 through mere budget circulars. Petitioner emphasizes that
budget circulars must conform to, not modify or amend, the provisions
of
the law it seeks to implement.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
HISTORY OF GRANT OF
ALLOWANCES TO JUDGES
The power of local government
units (LGUs) to grant allowances to judges stationed in their
respective
territories was originally provided by Letter of Instruction No. 1418
dated
July 18, 1984 (hereafter LOI No. 1418):chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREAS,
the
State is cognizant of the need to maintain the independence of the
Judiciary;
WHEREAS, the
budgetary
allotment of the Judiciary constitutes only a small percentage of the
national
budget;
WHEREAS, present
economic
conditions adversely affected the livelihood of the members of the
Judiciary;
WHEREAS, some
local
government units are ready, willing and able to pay additional
allowances
to Judges of various courts within their respective territorial
jurisdiction;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
NOW, THEREFORE, I,
FERDINAND
E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, do hereby
direct:
1.
Section
3 of Letter of Implementation No. 96 is hereby amended to read as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"3. The
allowances provided
in this letter shall be borne exclusively by the National Government.
However,
provincial, city and municipal governments may pay additional
allowances
to the members and personnel of the Judiciary assigned in their
respective
areas out of available local funds but not to exceed P1,500.00;
Provided,
that in Metropolitan Manila, the city and municipal governments therein
may pay additional allowances not exceeding P3,000.00. (Emphasis
ours.)"[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 25, 1991, the
DBM
issued Circular No. 91-7 outlining the guidelines for the continued
receipt
of allowances by judges from LGUs:
Consistent
with the constitutional provision on the fiscal autonomy of the
judiciary
and the policy of the National Government of allowing greater autonomy
to local government units, judges of the Judiciary are hereby allowed
to
continue to receive allowances at the same rates which they have been
receiving
from the Local Government Units as of June 30, 1989, subject to the
following
guidelines:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. That
the
continuance of payment of subject allowance to the recipient judge
shall
be entirely voluntary and non-compulsory on the part of the Local
Government
Units;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. That payment
of the
above shall always be subject to the availability of local funds;
3. That it shall
be
made only in compliance with the policy of non-diminution of
compensation
received by the recipient judge before the implementation of the salary
standardization;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. That the
subject
allowance shall be given only to judges who were receiving the same as
of June 30, 1989 and shall be co-terminous with the incumbent judges;
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. That the
subject
allowance shall automatically terminate upon transfer of a judge from
one
local government unit to another local government unit. (Emphasis
ours.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 10, 1991,
Congress
enacted RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.[13]
The power of the LGUs to grant allowances and other benefits to judges
and other national officials stationed in their respective territories
was expressly provided in Sections 447(a)(1)(xi), 458(a)(1)(xi) and
468(a)(1)(xi)
of the Code.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On March 15, 1994, the
DBM issued Local Budget Circular No. 55 (hereafter LBC No. 55) setting
out the maximum amount of allowances that LGUs may grant to judges. For
provinces and cities, the amount should not exceed P1,000 and for
municipalities,
P700.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 3, 2002,
we struck down the above circular in Dadole, et al. vs. COA.[14]
We ruled there that the Local Government Code of 1991 clearly provided
that LGUs could grant allowances to judges, subject only to the
condition
that the finances of the LGUs allowed it. We held that "setting a
uniform
amount for the grant of allowances (was) an inappropriate way of
enforcing
said criterion." Accordingly, we declared that the DBM exceeded its
power
of supervision over LGUs by imposing a prohibition that did not jibe
with
the Local Government Code of 1991.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ESTABLISHED
PRINCIPLES
INVOLVED
From the foregoing history
of the power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges, the following
principles
should be noted:
1. the
power
of LGUs to grant allowances to judges has long been recognized (since
1984
by virtue of LOI No. 1418) and, at present, it is expressly and
unequivocally
provided in Sections 447, 458 and 468 of the Local Government Code of
1991;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. the issuance of
DBM
Circular No. 91-7 dated June 25, 1991 and LBC No. 55 dated March 15,
1994
indicates that the national government recognizes the power of LGUs to
grant such allowances to judges;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. in Circular No.
91-7,
the national government merely provides the guidelines for the
continued
receipt of allowances by judges from LGUs while in LBC No. 55, the
national
government merely tries to limit the amount of allowances LGUs may
grant
to judges andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. in the recent
case
of Dadole, et al. vs. COA, the Court upheld the constitutionally
enshrined
autonomy of LGUs to grant allowances to judges in any amount deemed
appropriate,
depending on availability of funds, in accordance with the Local
Government
Code of 1991. OUR RULING
We rule in favor of
petitioner judge. Respondent COA erred in opposing the grant of the
P1,600
monthly allowance by the Municipality of Naujan to petitioner Judge
Leynes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
DISCUSSION OF OUR
RULING
Section 447(a)(1)(xi)
of RA 7160, the Local
Government Code of 1991, provides:
(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 x x x, and shall:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1)
Approve
ordinances and pass resolutions necessary for an efficient and
effective
municipal government, and in this connection shall:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
(xi) When the
finances
of the municipal government allow, provide for additional allowances
and
other benefits to judges, prosecutors, public elementary and high
school
teachers, and other national government officials stationed in or
assigned
to the municipality; (Emphasis ours.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent COA,
however,
contends that the above section has been repealed, modified or amended
by NCC No. 67 dated January 1, 1992, RA 7645 (the General
Appropriations
Act of 1993) and LBC No. 53 dated September 1, 1993.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is elementary in
statutory construction that an administrative circular cannot
supersede,
abrogate, modify or nullify a statute. A statute is superior to an
administrative
circular, thus the latter cannot repeal or amend it.[17]
In the present case, NCC No. 67, being a mere administrative circular,
cannot repeal a substantive law like RA 7160.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is also an elementary
principle in statutory construction that repeal of statutes by
implication
is not favored, unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended.
The legislature is assumed to know the existing laws on the subject and
cannot be presumed to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes.[18]Respondent
COA alleges that Section 36 of RA 7645 (the GAA of 1993) repealed
Section
447(a)(1)(xi) of RA
7160
(the LGC of 1991). A review of the two laws, however, shows that
this
was not so. Section 36 of RA 7645 merely provided for the different
rates
of RATA payable to national government officials or employees,
depending
on their position, and stated that these amounts were payable from the
programmed appropriations of the parent agencies to which the concerned
national officials or employees belonged. Furthermore, there was no
other
provision in RA 7645 from which a repeal of Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA
7160 could be implied. In the absence, therefore, of any clear repeal
of
Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA
7160, we cannot presume such intention on the part of the
legislature.cralaw:red
Moreover, the presumption
against implied repeal becomes stronger when, as in this case, one law
is special and the other is general.[19]
The principle is expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non
derogant,
a general law does not nullify a specific or special law. The reason
for
this is that the legislature, in passing a law of special character,
considers
and makes special provisions for the particular circumstances dealt
with
by the special law. This being so, the legislature, by adopting a
general
law containing provisions repugnant to those of the special law and
without
making any mention of its intention to amend or modify such special
law,
cannot be deemed to have intended an amendment, repeal or modification
of the latter.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, RA 7160
(the LGC of 1991) is a special law[21]
which exclusively deals with local government units (LGUs), outlining
their
powers and functions in consonance with the constitutionally mandated
policy
of local autonomy. RA 7645 (the GAA of 1993), on the other hand, was a
general law[22]
which outlined the share in the national fund of all branches of the
national
government. RA 7645 therefore, being a general law, could not have, by
mere implication, repealed RA 7160. Rather, RA 7160 should be taken as
the exception to RA 7645 in the absence of circumstances warranting a
contrary
conclusion.[23]
The controversy actually
centers on the seemingly sweeping provision in NCC No. 67 which states
that "no one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than one
source."
Does this mean that judges cannot receive allowances from LGUs in
addition
to the RATA from the Supreme Court? For reasons that will hereinafter
be
discussed, we answer in the negative.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The pertinent provisions
of NCC No. 67 read:
3. Rules
and
Regulations:
3.1.1 Payment of
RATA,
whether commutable or reimbursable, shall be in accordance with the
rates
prescribed for each of the following officials and employees and those
of equivalent ranks, and the conditions enumerated under the pertinent
sections of the General Provisions of the annual General Appropriations
Act (GAA):chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
4. Funding Source:
In all
cases,
commutable and reimbursable RATA shall be paid from the amount
appropriated
for the purpose and other personal services savings of the agency or
project
from where the officials and employees covered under this Circular draw
their salaries. No one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than
one source. (Emphasis ours.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In construing NCC No.
67,
we apply the principle in statutory construction that force and effect
should not be narrowly given to isolated and disjoined clauses of the
law
but to its spirit, broadly taking all its provisions together in one
rational
view.[24]
Because a statute is enacted as a whole and not in parts or sections,
that
is, one part is as important as the others, the statute should be
construed
and given effect as a whole. A provision or section which is unclear by
itself may be clarified by reading and construing it in relation to the
whole statute.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Taking NCC No. 67 as
a whole then, what it seeks to prevent is the dual collection of RATA
by
a national official from the budgets of "more than one national
agency."
We emphasize that the other source referred to in the prohibition is
another
national agency. This can be gleaned from the fact that the sentence
"no
one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than one source" (the
controversial
prohibition) immediately follows the sentence that RATA shall be paid
from
the budget of the national agency where the concerned national
officials
and employees draw their salaries. The fact that the other source is
another
national agency is supported by RA 7645 (the GAA of 1993) invoked by
respondent
COA itself and, in fact, by all subsequent GAAs for that matter,
because
the GAAs all essentially provide that (1) the RATA of national
officials
shall be payable from the budgets of their respective national agencies
and (2) those officials on detail with other national agencies shall be
paid their RATA only from the budget of their parent national agency:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 36, RA 7645,
General Appropriations Act of 1993:
Representation
and Transportation Allowances. The following officials and those of
equivalent
rank as may be determined by the Department of Budget and Management
(DBM)
while in the actual performance of their respective functions are
hereby
granted monthly commutable representation and transportation allowances
payable from the programmed appropriations provided for their
respective
offices, not exceeding the rates indicated below, which shall apply to
each type of allowance:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Officials on
detail
with other offices, including officials of the Commission of Audit
assigned
to serve other offices or agencies, shall be paid the allowance herein
authorized from the appropriations of their parent agencies. (Emphasis
ours.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly therefore, the
prohibition in NCC No. 67 is only against the dual or multiple
collection
of RATA by a national official from the budgets of two or more national
agencies. Stated otherwise, when a national official is on detail with
another national agency, he should get his RATA only from his parent
national
agency and not from the other national agency he is detailed to.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Since the other source
referred in the controversial prohibition is another national agency,
said
prohibition clearly does not apply to LGUs like the Municipality of
Naujan.
National agency of course refers to the different offices, bureaus and
departments comprising the national government. The budgets of these
departments
or offices are fixed annually by Congress in the General Appropriations
Act.[26]
An LGU is obviously not a national agency. Its annual budget is fixed
by
its own legislative council (Sangguniang Bayan, Panlungsod or
Panlalawigan),
not by Congress. Without doubt, NCC No. 67 does not apply to LGUs.cralaw:red
The prohibition in NCC
No. 67 is in fact an administrative tool of the DBM to prevent the
much-abused
practice of multiple allowances, thus standardizing the grant of RATA
by
national agencies. Thus, the purpose clause of NCC No. 67 reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This
Circular
is being issued to ensure uniformity and consistency of actions on
claims
for representation and transportation allowance (RATA) which is
primarily
granted by law to national government officials and employees to cover
expenses incurred in the discharge or performance of their duties and
responsibilities.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By no stretch of the
imagination
can NCC No. 67 be construed as nullifying the power of LGUs to grant
allowances
to judges under the Local Government Code of 1991. It was issued
primarily
to make the grant of RATA to national officials under the national
budget
uniform. In other words, it applies only to the national funds
administered
by the DBM, not the local funds of LGUs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To rule against the
power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges as what respondent COA
would
like us to do will subvert the principle of local autonomy zealously
guaranteed
by the Constitution.[27]
The Local Government Code of 1991 was specially promulgated by Congress
to ensure the autonomy of local governments as mandated by the
Constitution.
By upholding, in the present case, the power of LGUs to grant
allowances
to judges and leaving to their discretion the amount of allowances they
may want to grant, depending on the availability of local funds, we
ensure
the genuine and meaningful local autonomy of LGUs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We now discuss the next
contention of respondent COA: that the resolution of the Sangguniang
Bayan
of Naujan granting the P1,600 monthly allowance to petitioner judge was
null and void because it failed to comply with LBC No. 53 dated
September
1, 1993:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 3.
Allowances.
— LGUs may grant allowances/additional compensation to the national
government
officials/employees assigned to their locality at rates authorized by
law,
rules and regulations and subject to the following preconditions:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a. That
the
annual income or finances of the municipality, city or province as
certified
by the Accountant concerned will allow the grant of the
allowances/additional
compensation without exceeding the general limitations for personal
services
under Section 325 of RA 7160;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b. That the
budgetary
requirements under Section 324 of RA 7160 including the full
requirement
of RA 6758 have been satisfied and provided fully in the budget as
certified
by the Budget Officer and COA representative in the LGU concerned;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c. That the LGU
has
fully implemented the devolution of personnel/functions in accordance
with
the provisions of RA 7160;
d. That the LGU
has
already created mandatory positions prescribed in RA 7160.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
e. That similar
allowances/additional
compensation are not granted by the national government to the
officials/employees
assigned to the LGU.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Though LBC No. 53 of
the
DBM may be considered within the ambit of the President's power of
general
supervision over LGUs,[28]
we rule that Section 3, paragraph (e) thereof is invalid. RA
7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, clearly provides that
provincial,
city and municipal governments may grant allowances to judges as long
as
their finances allow. Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53, by
outrightly
prohibiting LGUs from granting allowances to judges whenever such
allowances
are (1) also granted by the national government or (2) similar to the
allowances
granted by the national government, violates Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of
the
Local Government Code of 1991.[29]
As already stated, a circular must conform to the law it seeks to
implement
and should not modify or amend it.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, by prohibiting
LGUs from granting allowances similar to the allowances granted by the
national government, Section 3(e) of LBC No. 53 practically prohibits
LGUs
from granting allowances to judges and, in effect, totally nullifies
their
statutory power to do so. Being unduly restrictive therefore of the
statutory
power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges and being violative of
their
autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution, Section 3, paragraph (e) of
LBC
No. 53 is hereby declared null and void.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Paragraphs (a) to (d)
of said circular, however, are valid as they are in accordance with
Sections
324[31]
and 325[32]
of the Local Government Code of 1991; these respectively provide for
the
budgetary requirements and general limitations on the use of
provincial,
city and municipal funds. Paragraphs (a) to (d) are proper guidelines
for
the condition provided in Sections 447, 458 and 468 of the Local
Government
Code of 1991 that LGUs may grant allowances to judges if their funds
allow.[33]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent COA also
argues that Resolution No. 101 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan
failed
to comply with paragraphs (a) to (d) of LBC No. 53, thus it was null
and
void.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The argument is misplaced.cralaw:red
Guidelines (a) to (d)
were met when the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro approved
Resolution No. 101 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan granting the
P1,600
monthly allowance to petitioner judge as well as the corresponding
budgets
of the municipality providing for the said monthly allowance to
petitioner
judge. Under Section 327 of the Local Government Code of 1991, the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan was specifically tasked to review the appropriation
ordinances
of its component municipalities to ensure compliance with Sections 324
and 325 of the Code. Considering said duty of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan,
we will assume, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro performed what the law required it to
do, that is, review the resolution and the corresponding budgets of the
Municipality of Naujan to make sure that they complied with Sections
324
and 325 of the Code.[34]
We presume the regularity of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's official
act.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, it is well-settled
that an ordinance must be presumed valid in the absence of evidence
showing
that it is not in accordance with the law.[35]
Respondent COA had the burden of proving that Resolution No. 101 of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan did not comply with the condition provided
in Section 447 of the Code, the budgetary requirements and general
limitations
on the use of municipal funds provided in Sections 324 and 325 of the
Code
and the implementing guidelines issued by the DBM, i.e., paragraphs (a)
to (d), Section 3 of LBC No. 53. Respondent COA also had the burden of
showing that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro
erroneously
approved said resolution despite its non-compliance with the
requirements
of the law. It failed to discharge such burden. On the contrary, we
find
that the resolution of the Municipality of Naujan granting the P1,600
monthly
allowance to petitioner judge fully complied with the law. Thus, we
uphold
its validity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In sum, we hereby affirm
the power of the Municipality of Naujan to grant the questioned
allowance
to petitioner Judge Leynes in accordance with the constitutionally
mandated
policy of local autonomy and the provisions of the Local Government
Code
of 1991. We also sustain the validity of Resolution No. 101, Series of
1993, of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan for being in accordance with
the
law.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the petition
is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision dated September 14, 1999 of
the
Commission of Audit is hereby SET ASIDE and Section 3, paragraph (e) of
LBC No. 53 is hereby declared NULL and VOID.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
No costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Chairman Celso D. Gañgan and Commissioners Raul C.
Flores
and Emmanuel M. Dalman.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Respondent COA erroneously considered the P944 monthly allowance as
RATA
from the Supreme Court in its Comment dated October 23, 2000 and
Memorandum
dated June 26, 2001. Rollo, pp. 53, 103.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Annex "D," Certification of the Office of the Municipal Accountant;
Petition
for Certiorari, p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Annex "E," Resolution No. 101, Series of 1991, Rollo, p. 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Petition for Certiorari, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Rollo, p. 38.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo, pp. 40–42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, pp. 22–25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Respondent COA erroneously considered the P944 monthly allowance being
received by petitioner judge from the local funds of the municipality
since
1984 as RATA from the Supreme Court. Thus, in 1993 when the
municipality
increased said allowance to P1,600 (an increase of P656), COA opposed
the
grant of the whole P1,600 monthly allowance because the municipality
supposedly
could not grant RATA to petitioner judge in addition to the RATA
already
granted by the Supreme Court. See Comment dated October 23, 2000 and
Memorandum
dated June 26, 2001, Rollo, pp. 53, 103.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 22–25, 31–33, 36–38, 57–64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, pp. 10–17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
In Allarde vs. Commission on Audit, 218 SCRA 227 [1993], we ruled that
the use of the word "may" in LOI No. 1418 signifies that the allowance
may not be demanded as a matter of right, but is entirely dependent on
the will of the municipality concerned. It should be treated as an
honorarium,
an amount that is "given not as a matter of obligation but in
appreciation
of services rendered, a voluntary donation in consideration for
services
which admit of no compensation in money (Santiago vs. Commission on
Audit,
199 SCRA 128, 130)."chan
robles virtual
[13]
The law took effect on January 1, 1992.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Instead of filing a comment on behalf of respondent COA in this case,
the
Solicitor General filed a manifestation supporting the position of
petitioner
judges. The Solicitor General argued that (1) DBM only enjoyed the
power
to review and determine whether disbursement of funds were made in
accordance
with the ordinance passed by a LGU while (2) the COA had no more than
auditorial
visitation powers over the LGUs pursuant to Section 348 of RA 7160
which
provides for the power to inspect at any time the financial accounts of
LGUs. Moreover, the Solicitor General opined that "the DBM and the
respondent
are only authorized under RA 7160 to promulgate a Budget Operations
Manual
for LGUs, to improve and systematize methods, techniques and procedures
employed in budget preparation, authorization, execution and
accountability"
pursuant to Section 354 of RA 7160. The Solicitor General pointed out
that
LBC 55 was not exercised under any of the aforementioned provisions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Rollo, pp. 22–25.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
China Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 327 [1996].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
U.S. vs. Palacio, 33 Phil 208 [1916]; Maceda vs. Macaraeg, 197 SCRA 771
[1991].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Manila Railroad Co. vs. Rafferty, 40 Phil 224 [1919]; Commissioner of
Internal
Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 487 [1992].
[20]
De Villa vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 722 [1991].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
A special law is one which relates to particular persons or things of a
class, or to a particular portion or section of the state only. U.S.
vs.
Serapio, 23 Phil 584 [1912].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
A general law is one which affects all people of the state or all of a
particular class of persons in the state or embraces a class of
subjects
or places and does not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to
such class. U.S. vs. Serapio, 23 Phil 584 [1912]; Valera vs. Tuason, 80
Phil 823 [1948]; Villegas vs. Subido, 41 SCRA 190 [1971].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Villegas vs. Subido, 41 SCRA 190 [1971].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Araneta vs. Concepcion, 99 Phil 709 [1956]; Sotto vs. Sotto, 43 Phil
688
[1922].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Maddumba vs. Ozaeta, 82 Phil 345 [1948]; Lopez vs. El Hogar Filipino,
47
Phil 249 [1925].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
National agencies included in the national budget are Congress, Office
of the President, Office of the Vice-President, DA, DAR, DBM, DECS,
DENR,
DOF, DFA, DOH, DILG, DOJ, DOLE, DND, DPWH, DOST, DSWD, DOT, DTI, DOTC,
NEDA, Office of the Press Secretary, the Judiciary, Constitutional
Offices,
Commission on Human Rights, State Universities and Colleges and
Autonomous
Regions. See the GAA of 1993 as example.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Section 25, Article II; Section 2, Article X, 1987 Constitution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
The LBC No. 53 was issued by the DBM by virtue of Administrative Order
No. 42 which clarified the role of the DBM in the administration of the
compensation and position classification systems in the LGUs and
mandated
it, among other things, to provide guidelines for the grant of
allowances
and additional forms of compensation by the LGUs. AO No. 42 was issued
by the President by virtue of his power of general supervision over the
LGUs under Section 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Also Section 458(a)(1)(xi) and Section 468(a)(1)(xi), Local Government
Code of 1991.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
Supra note 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Section 324. Budgetary Requirements. — The budgets of local government
units for any fiscal year shall comply with the following requirements:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) The aggregate amount appropriated shall not exceed the estimates of
income;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) Full provision shall be made for all statutory and contractual
obligations
of the local government unit concerned: Provided, however, that the
amount
of appropriations for debt servicing shall not exceed twenty percent
(20%)
of the regular income of the local government unit concerned;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) In the case of provinces, cities, and municipalities, aid to
component
barangays shall be provided in amounts of not less than One thousand
pesos
(P1,000.00) per barangay; and
(d) Five percent (5%) of the estimated revenue from regular sources
shall
be set aside as an annual lump sum appropriation for unforeseen
expenditures
arising from the occurrence of calamities: Provided, however, that such
appropriation shall be used only in the area, or a portion thereof, of
the local government unit or other areas declared in a state of
calamity
by the President.
[32]
Section 325. General Limitations. — The use of the provincial, city and
municipal funds shall be subject to the following limitations:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) The total appropriations, whether annual or supplemental, for
personal
services of a local government unit for one (1) fiscal year shall not
exceed
forty-five (45%) in the case of first to third class provinces, cities,
and municipalities, and fifty-five percent (55%) in the case of fourth
class or lower, of the total annual income from regular sources
realized
in the next preceding fiscal year. The appropriations for salaries,
wages,
representation and transportation allowances of officials and employees
of the public utilities and economic enterprises owned, operated, and
maintained
by the local government unit concerned shall not be included in the
annual
budget or in the computation of the maximum amount for personal
services.
The appropriations for the personal services of such economic
enterprises
shall be charged to their respective budgets;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) No official or employee shall be entitled to a salary rate higher
than
the maximum fixed for his position or other positions of equivalent
rank
by applicable laws or rules and regulations issued thereunder;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(c) No local fund shall be appropriated to increase or adjust salaries
or wages of officials and employees of the national government, except
as may be expressly authorized by law;
(d) In cases of abolition of positions and the creation of new ones
resulting
from the abolition of existing positions in the career service, such
abolition
or creation shall be made in accordance with pertinent provisions of
this
code and the civil service law, rules and regulations;
(e) Positions in the official plantilla for career positions which are
occupied by incumbents holding permanent appointments shall be covered
by adequate appropriations;
(f) No changes in designation or nomenclature of positions resulting in
a promotion or demotion in rank or increase or decrease in compensation
shall be allowed, except when the position is actually vacant, and the
filling of such positions shall be strictly made in accordance with the
civil service law, rules and regulations;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(g) The creation of new positions and salary increases or adjustments
shall
in no case be made retroactive; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(h) The annual appropriations for discretionary purposes of the local
chief
executive shall not exceed two percent (2%) of the actual receipts
derived
from basic real property tax in the next preceding calendar year.
Discretionary
funds shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by
appropriate
vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law. No
amount shall be appropriated for the same purpose except as authorized
under this Section.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Paragraph (a) should be read in conjunction with the recent circular of
the DBM, Local Budget Circular No. 75 dated July 12, 2002 entitled
Guidelines
on Personal Services Limitation. Section 5.5 thereof entitled Honoraria
of National Government Personnel provides: "The appropriation intended
to be granted as honoraria and similar benefits to national government
personnel shall be classified as Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses
(MOOE) since these are not personal services costs of the local
government
unit."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[34]
Figuerres vs. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 206 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[35]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |