This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Local Water Utilities Administration,[4] through its Board of Trustees, adopted and approved Resolution No. 313, Series of 1995, as amended by Board Resolution No. 39, Series of 1996 (Resolution No. 313, as amended), entitled Policy Guidelines on Compensation and Other Benefits for the Water District Board of Directors, under which the members of the Water District Board of Directors were granted bonuses, benefits, and allowances. By virtue of the said Resolution, various benefits consisting of rice, uniform, representation, transportation, special financial assistance, bonus, cash gift and productivity/incentive allowances amounting to P303,172.00 were granted by MAWAD to the petitioners. | |||||
|
2005-03-18 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, in De Jesus v. Commission on Audit,[17] it was held that the benefits granted under LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995, to the petitioners therein, who were members of the interim board of directors of the Catbalogan Water District, need not be refunded because at the time they received the benefits, the Court had not yet decided Baybay Water District. Petitioners therein had no knowledge that such payment was without legal basis.[18] Good faith was thus considered by the Court in holding that the recipients of the allowances and bonuses disallowed by the COA need not refund the same.[19] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| These queries have already been settled in the case of De Jesus v. Commission on Audit.[7] Applying Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit,[8] it was held in De Jesus that Section 13 of PD 198, as amended,[9] categorically forbids the grant of bonuses and allowances other than payment of per diems. De Jesus likewise declared that LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995, which grants compensation and other benefits to the members of the Board of Directors of Local Water Districts, is not in conformity with Section 13 of PD 198, as amended. Nevertheless, it was held therein that the disallowed monetary benefits received by the Board Members concerned in 1997 and 1998 need not be refunded by the recipient Board Members because they received the same before Baybay Water District was promulgated on January 23, 2002. They were therefore of the honest belief that LWUA Board Resolution No. 313 was valid, thus This issue was already resolved in the similar case of Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit. In Baybay Water District, the members of the board of Baybay Water District also questioned the disallowance by the COA of payment of RATA, rice allowance and excessive per diems. The Court ruled that PD 198 governs the compensation of members of the board of water districts. Thus, members of the board of water districts cannot receive allowances and benefits more than those allowed by PD 198. Construing Section 13 of PD 198, the Court declared: x x x Under S[ection] 13 of this Decree, per diem is precisely intended to be the compensation of members of board of directors of water districts. Indeed, words and phrases in a statute must be given their natural, ordinary, and commonly-accepted meaning, due regard being given to the context in which the words and phrases are used. By specifying the compensation which a director is entitled to receive and by limiting the amount he/she is allowed to receive in a month, and, in the same paragraph, providing "No director shall receive other compensation" than the amount provided for per diems, the law quite clearly indicates that directors of water districts are authorized to receive only the per diem authorized by law and no other compensation or allowance in whatever form. Section 13 of PD 198 is clear enough that it needs no interpretation. It expressly prohibits the grant of compensation other than the payment of per diems, thus preempting the exercise of any discretion by water districts in paying other allowances and bonuses. x x x x x x x x x Nevertheless, our pronouncement in Blaquera v. Alcala supports petitioners' position on the refund of the benefits they received. In Blaquera, the officials and employees of several government departments and agencies were paid incentive benefits which the COA disallowed on the ground that Administrative Order No. 29 dated 19 January 1993 prohibited payment of these benefits. While the Court sustained the COA on the disallowance, it nevertheless declared that: Considering, however, that all the parties here acted in good faith, we cannot countenance the refund of subject incentive benefits for the year 1992, which amounts the petitioners have already received. Indeed, no indicia of bad faith can be detected under the attendant facts and circumstances. The officials and chiefs of offices concerned disbursed such incentive benefits in the honest belief that the amounts given were due to the recipients and the latter accepted the same with gratitude, confident that they richly deserve such benefits. This ruling in Blaquera applies to the instant case. Petitioners here received the additional allowances and bonuses in good faith under the honest belief that LWUA Board Resolution No. 313 authorized such payment. At the time petitioners received the additional allowances and bonuses, the Court had not yet decided Baybay Water District. Petitioners had no knowledge that such payment was without legal basis. Thus, being in good faith, petitioners need not refund the allowances and bonuses they received but disallowed by the COA. Accordingly, the Court sustains the disallowance of the monetary benefits granted to petitioners Members of the Board of the BCWD in accordance with LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995. Having been granted said allowances and bonuses in 1999, before the Court declared in Baybay Water District the illegality of payment of additional compensation other than the allowed per diem in Section 13, of PD 198, as amended, they can thus be considered to have received the same in good faith. Hence, they need not refund them. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| The issues posed in the instant petition had been settled in De Jesus v. Commission on Audit,[7] where the Court affirmed the COA's disallowance of a similar grant of bonuses and allowances under LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| xxx Under S 13 of this Decree, per diem is precisely intended to be the compensation of members of board of directors of water districts. Indeed, words and phrases in a statute must be given their natural, ordinary, and commonly-accepted meaning, due regard being given to the context in which the words and phrases are used. By specifying the compensation which a director is entitled to receive and by limiting the amount he/she is allowed to receive in a month, and, in the same paragraph, providing "No director shall receive other compensation" than the amount provided for per diems, the law quite clearly indicates that directors of water districts are authorized to receive only the per diem authorized by law and no other compensation or allowance in whatever form. Section 13 of PD 198 is clear enough that it needs no interpretation. It expressly prohibits the grant of compensation other than the payment of per diems, thus preempting the exercise of any discretion by water districts in paying other allowances and bonuses. On the question of refund, it was also held in De Jesus that the assailed allowances and bonuses need not be refunded. This is so because at the time such disbursements were made, the decision in Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit,[11] which enunciated the rule prohibiting the grant of allowances and bonuses other than per diems to Board members of water districts in accordance with LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995, had not yet been promulgated. Good faith was thus considered by the Court in holding that the recipients of the allowances and bonuses disallowed by the COA need not refund the same. | |||||