Dela Cruz v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, twenty in number, served as members of the Board of Directors of the National Housing Authority (NHA) between 1991 and 1996. During this period, they received representation allowances and per diems totaling P276,600.00. The underlying dispute arose from the disallowance of these payments by the NHA Resident Auditor. Procedural History: The disallowance was initiated following a September 19, 1997, Memorandum from the Commission on Audit (COA) directing the disallowance of additional compensation paid in violation of the rule on multiple positions, as clarified by the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary. Consequently, on October 23, 1997, the NHA Resident Auditor issued Notice of Disallowance No. 97-011-061. The petitioners, through the NHA Board Chairman, appealed this disallowance to the COA. On September 22, 1998, the COA issued Decision No. 98-381, denying the appeal and upholding the disallowance. The Petition: The petitioners have filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the COA's Decision No. 98-381. They argue that the Supreme Court's ruling in Civil Liberties Union was clarified to apply only to Cabinet members, their deputies, or assistants, and not to other appointive officials with equivalent or lower ranks. They contend that as NHA Directors, they occupy positions lower than Assistant Secretary and are therefore not covered by the prohibition. The petition seeks to overturn the COA's disallowance of their representation allowances and per diems.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Audit (COA) committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the payment of representation allowances and per diems to petitioners who served as alternates for ex-officio members of the National Housing Authority (NHA) Board.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Commission on Audit (COA) did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the National Housing Authority (NHA) Board is composed of specific Cabinet-level officials as mandated by Section 7 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 757. While the law allows these members to have alternates, the acts of these alternates are legally considered the acts of their principals. Under Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, as interpreted in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, Cabinet members are prohibited from receiving additional compensation for ex-officio positions because such duties are already covered by their primary salary. The Court reasoned that the authority of the petitioners as alternates is purely derivative and sourced from the power of the Cabinet members they represent. Therefore, if the principal is absolutely prohibited from receiving remuneration from the NHA, the agent or alternate must also be prohibited. The Court emphasized the legal maxim that 'the water cannot rise above its source,' concluding that an alternate cannot have a better right to compensation than the principal they represent.
Main Doctrine
The constitutional prohibition against Cabinet members, their deputies, and assistants receiving additional compensation for ex-officio positions applies with equal force to their alternates. An alternate's authority is purely derivative, sourced from the power of the principal they represent; thus, the alternate cannot validly receive benefits that the principal is legally barred from receiving. As the Court noted, 'the water cannot rise above its source,' meaning if the principal is prohibited from receiving remuneration for an ex-officio role, the agent is likewise prohibited.