Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HERMAN REY. SANTOS v. JUDGE EDMUNDO M. ISIDRO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 198271 2014-04-01	ARNALDO M. ESPINAS v. COA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Pursuant to the CoA's 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure, petitioners appealed the notice of disallowance to the CoA Cluster Director (Corporate Sector - Cluster B),[15] contending that the "certification" they attached in support of their EME reimbursement claims was originally allowed under Section 397 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual, Volume I (GAAM - Vol. I),[16] which is a reproduction of Item III(4) of CoA Circular No. 89-300[17] dated March 21, 1989 (CoA Circular No. 89-300), viz.: 4. x x x The corresponding claim for reimbursement of such expenses shall be supported by receipts and/or other documents evidencing disbursement, if these are available, or, in lieu thereof, by a certification executed by the official concerned that the expenses sought to be reimbursed have been incurred for any of the purposes contemplated under Section 19 and other related sections of RA 6688 (or similar provision[s] in subsequent General Appropriations Acts) in relation to or by reason of his position. In the case of miscellaneous expenses incurred for an office specified in the law, such certification shall be executed solely by the head of the office. [18] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 198271 2014-04-01	ARNALDO M. ESPINAS v. COA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Unconvinced, petitioners elevated the ruling to the Commission Proper, docketed as CoA CP Case No. 2010-101,[33] averring that: (a) the principle of ejusdem generis does not apply since there is no enumeration of things followed by general words in CoA Circular No. 2006-01;[34] (b) the certifications fall under the category of documents evidencing disbursements under Item III(3) of the same issuance, which, in any case, have been previously allowed under Section 397 of GAAM - Vol. I and CoA Circular No. 89-300;[35] and (c) there exists no valid classification between officials of NGAs and officials of GOCCs and GFIs.[36] Petitioners' previous contention on the circular's lack of publication was no longer raised in their petition to the Commission Proper.
	GR No. 198271 2014-04-01	ARNALDO M. ESPINAS v. COA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The CoA also correctly rejected petitioners' invocation of the provisions of Section 397 of GAAM - Vol. I and CoA Circular No. 89-300 since, at the outset, such rules are applicable only to NGAs, and not to GOCCs, GFIs and their subsidiaries which are specifically governed by CoA Circular No. 2006-01.[50] A perusal of CoA Circular No. 89-300, from which Section 397 of GAAM - Vol. I was merely reproduced, clearly indicates in Item II thereof, captioned "Scope and Coverage," that the rules thereunder applies to "appropriations authorized under [the GAA of 1989] for National Government agencies [that] may be used for incurrence of extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses at the rates and by the offices and officials specified therein for, among others x x x."[51] A similar inference may be reached from a reading of Item I of CoA Circular No. 89-300, captioned as "Rationale," which states that the circular was made in response to the "increasing number of queries and requests for clarification as to the real import and true intent of [the provisions of the GAA of 1989] authorizing the use by certain national government officials of appropriations authorized for their agencies for extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses."[52] On the other hand, Item II of CoA Circular No. 2006-01, captioned as "Scope and Coverage," explicitly states that "[t]his circular shall be applicable to all GOCCs, GFIs and their subsidiaries" and shall cover their "extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses and other similar expenses."[53] Item I of CoA Circular No. 2006-01, captioned as "Rationale," also mentions the CoA's declared policy to "prescribe rules and regulations specifically for government corporations to regulate the incurrence of these expenditures and ensure the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds" considering that "[g]overning boards of [GOCCs/GFIs] are invariably empowered to appropriate through resolutions such amounts as they deem appropriate for extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses."[54] Based on the foregoing, it is readily apparent that petitioners' reliance on Section 397 of GAAM - Vol. I and Item III(4) of CoA Circular No. 89-300 was improper, hence, the CoA's apt dismissal of the same.
	GR No. 204869 2014-03-11	TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. COA CARPIO, J.
The COA faithfully implemented the GAA provisions. COA Circular No. 2012-001[17] states that the amount fixed under the GAA for the National Government offices and officials shall be the ceiling in the disbursement of EME. COA Circular No. 89-300,[18] prescribing the guidelines in the disbursement of EME, likewise states that the amount fixed by the GAA shall be the basis for the control in the disbursement of these funds.
	GR No. 204869 2014-03-11	TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. COA CARPIO, J.
The position of project officer is not among those listed or authorized to be entitled to EME, namely, the officials named in the GAA, the officers of equivalent rank as may be authorized by the DBM, and the offices under them. The underlying principle behind the EME is to enable those occupying key positions in the government to meet various financial demands.[24] As pointed out by COA, the position of project officer is not even included in the Personnel Service Itemization or created with authority from the DBM.[25] Thus, the TESDA officials were, in fact, merely designated with additional duties, which designation did not entitle them to additional EME. In Dimaandal v. COA,[26] we held that designation is a mere imposition of additional duties, which does not entail payment of additional benefits. Since the TESDA officials were merely designated with additional duties, the ruling in Cantillo v. Arrieta[27] on de facto officers need not be discussed.