ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET ANDG.R. No. 169726 MANAGEMENT, represented by Sec. Emilia T. Boncodin,Present: Petitioner, CARPIO, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES,*c�fal�.w BRION, - versus -ABAD,and PEREZ, JJ.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary OLIVIA D. LEONES,Promulgated: Respondent. March 18, 2010 x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x D E C I S I O NCARPIO, J.: The Case This resolves the petition for reviewc�fa1c�fac�fal�.w of the Decisionc�fa2c�fac�fal�.w of the Court of Appeals finding respondent Olivia D. Leones entitled to representation and transportation allowance.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Facts Before 1996, respondent Olivia D. Leones (respondent) was the Municipal Treasurer of Bacnotan, La Union.In December 1996, respondent was reassigned to the Office of the Provincial Treasurer, La Union, pending resolution of administrative cases filed against her.c�fa3c�fac�fal�.w As Municipal Treasurer, respondent received, on top of her salary, representation and transportation allowance (RATA).The Municipality of Bacnotan stopped paying RATA to respondent upon her reassignment to the Provincial Government.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary After unsuccessfully obtaining administrative relief,c�fa4c�fac�fal�.w respondent filed a mandamus suit with the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union (trial court) against petitioner Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and then mayor of Bacnotan, Ma. Minda Fontanilla (Fontanilla), to compel payment of RATA. The trial court dismissed the petition for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. On appeal by respondent,c�fa5c�fac�fal�.w the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. As respondent no longer pursued the case, the trial courts ruling became final on 30 June 2003.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary However, respondent again sought an opinion, this time from the DBM Secretary, on her entitlement to RATA. In its reply dated 3 September 2003 (Opinion), the DBM found respondent entitled to RATA only for 1999 under the General Appropriation Act (GAA) for that year which, unlike previous and succeeding years, did not require actual performance of x x x functions as condition for receipt of RATA.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Assailing the Opinion, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.Respondent contended that her non-receipt of RATA violates the rule on non-dimunition of salary in reassignments.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its Decision dated 24 May 2005, the Court of Appeals granted respondents petition and ordered the DBM and Fontanilla to pay respondent RATA for the duration of her reassignment. Sustaining respondents theory, the Court of Appeals characterized RATA as part of salary, thus subject to the rule on non-dimunition of salary in reassignments.c�fa6c�fac�fal�.w The Court of Appeals found erroneous the DBMs reliance on the GAAs requiring actual performance of functions as precondition for payment of RATA because respondents salary was charged against the local budget of Bacnotan and not against the national budget.c�fa7c�fac�fal�.w The DBMs motion for reconsideration equally proved unsuccessful.c�fa8c�fac�fal�.w Hence, this petition. The DBM argues that RATA is not part of salary and does not attach to the position but is paid based on the actual performance of functions. Hence, respondent, not having been in the actual performance of her functions as treasurer of Bacnotan during her reassignment to the La Union treasurers office, is not entitled to receive RATA except for 1999 because the GAA for that year did not require actual performance of functions as condition for payment of RATA.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Issue The question is whether, after her reassignment to the La Union treasurers office, respondent, the treasurer of Bacnotan, was entitled to receive RATA.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Ruling of the Court We hold that respondent was entitled to receive RATA after her reassignment, not because the allowance forms part of her salary, but because the discontinuance of payment lacks legal basis.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary RATA Distinct from Salary The DBM correctly characterizes RATA as allowance distinct from salary. Statutory law,c�fa9c�fac�fal�.w as implemented by administrative issuancesc�fa10c�fac�fal�.w and interpreted in decisions,c�fa11c�fac�fal�.w has consistently treated RATA as distinct from salary. Unlike salary which is paid for services rendered, RATA belongs to a basket of allowancesc�fa12c�fac�fal�.w to defray expenses deemed unavoidable in the discharge of office.c�fa13c�fac�fal�.w Hence,RATA is paid only to certain officials who, by the nature of their offices, incur representation and transportation expenses.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary However, the foregoing does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that under all circumstances and despite lack of legal basis, RATA is paid only if the RATA-entitled officer actually discharges his office.First, it became necessary to distinguish allowances (such as RATA) from salary mainly because under Section 12 of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (RA 6758)c�fa14c�fac�fal�.w (applicable to all public sector employees), all forms of financial assistance and allowancesc�fa15c�fac�fal�.w were integrated to the standardized salaries except for certain allowances specified by RA 6758 (such as RATA) and as determined by regulation.c�fa16c�fac�fal�.wSecond,non-performance of duties may result from compliance with orders devoid of the employees volition such as suspension, termination resulting in reinstatement, or, as here, reassignment. At any rate, the denial of RATA must be grounded on relevant and specific provision of law.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary No Law Justifies Denial of RATA for Reassigned Local Government Officials The DBM concedes that as Municipal Treasurer, respondent was entitled to receive (and did receive) RATA because such position isequivalent to a head of a municipal government department.c�fa17c�fac�fal�.w However, the DBM contends thatrespondents reassignment to La Union treasurers office cut off this entitlement. As bases for this claim, the DBM invokes the GAAs from 1996 to 2005 (except in 1999c�fa18c�fac�fal�.w) uniformly providing (in different sectionsc�fa19c�fac�fal�.w) thus: T]he following officials and those of equivalent rank as may be determined by the Department of Budget and Management 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 x. (Emphasis supplied) As secondary basis, the DBM calls the Courts attention to Section 3.3.1 of the National Compensation Circular No. 67 (Section 3.3.1), dated 1 January 1992,which provides: 3.3. The officials and employees referredto in Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 hereof shall no longer be authorized to continue to collect RATA in the following instances: 3.3.1 When on full-time detail with another organizational unit of the same agency, another agency, or special project for one (1) full calendar month or more, except when the duties and responsibilities they perform are comparable with those of their regular positions, in which case, they may be authorized to continue to collect RATA on a reimbursable basis, subject to the availability of funds[.] (Emphasis supplied) and contends that respondent falls under the general rule thus justifying the cessation of her RATA payment.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary None of these rules supports the DBMs case.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary On the relevance of the GAAs, the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that they find no application to a local government official like respondent whose compensation and allowances are funded by local appropriation laws passed by the Sangguniang Bayan of Bacnotan. It is the municipal ordinances of Bacnotan, providing for the annual budget for its operation, which govern respondents receipt of RATA. Although the records do not contain copies of the relevant Bacnotan budget ordinances, we find significant Fontanillas referral to the DBM of respondents April 2002 letter requesting RATA payment.c�fa20c�fac�fal�.w Evidently, Bacnotans annual budgetary appropriations for 1996 to 2005 contained no provision similar to the provisions in the GAAs the DBM now cites; otherwise, Fontanilla would have readily invoked them to deny respondents request.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The DBM tries to go around this insuperable obstacle by distinguishing payment from the conditions for the payment and theorizes that although respondents salary and allowances were charged against Bacnotans annual budget, they were subject to the condition contained in the GAAs for 1996-2005 linking the payment of RATA to the actual performance of duties.c�fa21c�fac�fal�.w The Court cannot subscribe to this theory without ignoring the wall dividing the vertical structure of government in this country and a foundational doctrine animating local governance.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Although the Philippines is a unitary State, the present Constitution (as in the past) accommodates within the system the operation of local government units with enhanced administrative autonomy and autonomous regions with limited political autonomy.c�fa22c�fac�fal�.w Subject to the Presidents power of general supervisionc�fa23c�fac�fal�.w and exercising delegated powers, these units and regions operate much like the national government, with their own executive and legislative branches, financed by locally generated and nationally allocated funds disbursed through budgetary ordinances passed by their local legislative councils. The DBMs submission tinkers with this design by making provisions in national budgetary laws automatically incorporated in local budgetary ordinances, thus reducing local legislative councils from the provinces down to the barangays and the legislative assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, to mere extensions of Congress. Although novel, the theory is anathema to the present vertical structure of Philippine government and to any notion of local autonomy which the Constitution mandates.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Nor can the DBM anchor its case on Section 3.3.1. The National Compensation Circular No. 67, which the DBM issued, is entitled Representation and Transportation Allowances of National Government Officials and Employees, thus excluding local government officials like respondent from its ambit. At any rate, respondent falls under the exception clause in Section 3.3.1, having been reassigned to another unit of the same agency with duties and responsibilities comparable to her previous position.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Respondent was reassigned to La Union treasurers office within the same agency,c�fa24c�fac�fal�.w namely, the Department of Finance, because local treasuries remain under the control of the Secretary of Financec�fa25c�fac�fal�.w (unlike some offices which were devolved to the local governmentsc�fa26c�fac�fal�.w).Paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 470of Republic Act No. 7160 (RA 7160), the Local Government Code of 1991, provide the functions of The treasurer: (d) The treasurer shall take charge of the treasury office, perform the duties provided for under Book II of this Code, and shall: (1) Advise the governor or mayor, as the case may be, the sanggunian, and other local government and national officials concerned regarding disposition of local government funds, and on such other matters relative to public finance;cralaw (2) Take custody of and exercise proper management of the funds of the local government unit concerned;cralaw (3) Take charge of the disbursement of all local government funds and such other funds the custody of which may be entrusted to him by law or other competent authority;cralaw (4) Inspect private commercial and industrial establishments within the jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned in relation to the implementation of tax ordinances, pursuant to the provisions under Book II of this Code;cralaw (5) Maintain and update the tax information system of the local government unit;cralaw (6) In the case of the provincial treasurer, exercise technical supervision over all treasury offices of component cities and municipalities; and (e) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, irrespective of the level of the local government unit involved, no distinction exists in the functions of local treasurers except in the technical supervision by the provincial treasurer over subordinate treasury offices. Logically, the employees in all local treasuries perform comparable functions within the framework of Section 70 (d) and (e). Hence, the DBMs casual claim that the facts at hand do not reflect that the functions performed by respondent during the period of her reassignment were comparable to those she performed prior to her reassignmentc�fa27c�fac�fal�.w finds no basis in fact or in law. In terms of performing comparative functions, the reassignment here is no different from that of a RATA-entitled officer of the Department of Science and Technology who, as Chief of the Finance and Management Division, was reassigned to the Directors Office, Finance and Management Service Office. We considered the officer entitled to RATA despite the reassignment for lack of basis for the non-payment.c�fa28c�fac�fal�.w Indeed, for an employee not to fall under the exception in Section 3.3.1, the functions attached to the new office must be so alien to the functions pertaining to the former office as to make the two absolutely unrelated or non-comparable.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Before disposing of this matter, we highlight the element of inequity undergirding the DBMs case. By insisting that, as requisite for her receipt of RATA, respondent must discharge her office as Bacnotans treasurer while on reassignment at the La Union treasurers office, the DBM effectively punishes respondent for acceding to her reassignment. Surely, the law could not have intended to place local government officials like respondent in the difficult position of having to choose between disobeying a reassignment order or keeping an allowance. As we observedin a parallel case: O]n petitioners contention that RATA should be allowed only if private respondent is performing the duties of her former office, the CSC correctly explained that private respondent was reassigned to another office and thus her inability to perform the functions of her position as Division Chief is beyond her control and not of her own volition.[] x x xc�fa29c�fac�fal�.w The DBM itself acknowledged the harshness of its position by carving in Section 3.3.1 an exception for national government officials performing comparable duties while on reassignment, cushioning the deleterious financial effects reassignments bring to the employee with due regard to the state of the governments coffers.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 24 May 2005 and the Resolution dated 15 September 2005 of the Court of Appeals.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRIONROBERTO A. ABAD Associate JusticeAssociate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the DivisionChairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice cralawEndnotes:
|
|