Macatangay v. Chairman of Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Conrado V. Macatangay, formerly served as the Municipal Mayor of Calaca, Batangas. He sought to commute accumulated leave earned during his terms of office, specifically from August 7, 1946, to December 31, 1953, and from January 1, 1964, to December 31, 1967. 2. Procedural History: Macatangay's application for commutation of his alleged ten months of terminal leave was initially approved by the Department of Local Government and Community Development. However, the Municipal Treasurer forwarded the voucher to the Provincial Auditor, who suggested holding the claim in abeyance pending a resolution from the Auditor General. The Auditor General, on September 3, 1973, informed Macatangay that his claim could not be processed. Subsequently, Macatangay wrote to the Commission on Audit requesting approval, but the Acting Chairman reiterated the disallowance, citing an opinion from the Secretary of Justice. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: This case reaches the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certiorari. Macatangay argues that as a former municipal mayor, he is entitled to leave privileges and their commutation under Sections 286 and 2187 of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 12(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended. He further contends that the Court's ruling in Manuel vs. General Auditing Office is applicable to his situation. The respondent Commission on Audit maintains that no law expressly grants leave privileges or commutation thereof to elective officials like municipal mayors, and that the Manuel case is not a binding precedent for such claims.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner, as a former municipal mayor, is entitled to leave privileges under existing laws. Whether the decision in Manuel vs. General Auditing Office (G.R. No. L-28952, December 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 660) applies to the petitioner's claim regarding entitlement to leave commutation.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the respondent Chairman of the Commission on Audit refusing to allow in audit the claim of petitioner Conrado V. Macatangay for the commutation of his leave earned as Municipal Mayor of Calaca, Batangas, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement of elective officials to leave privileges: The Court held that Chapter 13 of the Revised Administrative Code, the "Leave Law," governs leave privileges and is primarily intended for appointive government officers and employees. Sections 284 and 285-A, read in conjunction with Section 286, clearly indicate their application to appointed personnel, evidenced by the requirement of a probationary period of six months, which does not apply to elective officials serving fixed terms. Furthermore, the Court noted that elective officials' entitlement to salary is not dependent on actual attendance, and they are not required to keep daily attendance records or seek leave for absences, as they are deemed in the service of their constituents regardless of time and place. Therefore, there is no "absence" to speak of for elective officials in the same manner as for appointive employees. On the applicability of cited laws and jurisprudence regarding leave commutation: The Court found that Section 2187 of the Revised Administrative Code, cited by the petitioner, only grants municipal mayors the right to receive full salary during absence due to illness not exceeding thirty days, without mention of leave application, accumulation, or commutation. Section 12(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, while allowing retirement for elective officials, does not automatically grant them the commutation of unused vacation and sick leave; such a privilege depends on the existence of a law expressly granting leave privileges. The provision presupposes the existence of earned leave credits, which an elective official would not have if not entitled to leave privileges in the first place. Consequently, the case of Manuel vs. General Auditing Office cannot be used as the sole basis for claims of commutation of leave by elective officials without first establishing entitlement under a specific law granting such privileges.
Main Doctrine
Elective officials, including municipal mayors, are generally not entitled to leave privileges or the commutation thereof under existing laws, as the "Leave Law" primarily applies to appointive government employees. Their entitlement to salary is not dependent on actual attendance in office, and they are not required to keep attendance records or seek leave for absences.