Leynes v. The Commission on Audit
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Judge Tomas C. Leynes was the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. While his salary and Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) were drawn from the Supreme Court budget, he had also been receiving a monthly allowance of P944 from the local funds of the Municipality of Naujan since 1984. On May 7, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan passed Resolution No. 101, increasing this local allowance to P1,600. This increase was approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Office of Provincial Budget and Management. Procedural History: On February 17, 1994, the Provincial Auditor directed the municipality to stop the payment of the P1,600 allowance and ordered a refund. The Auditor argued that under the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 1993 and DBM National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 67, no official is allowed to collect RATA from more than one source. Judge Leynes appealed to the Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Director and subsequently to the COA En Banc. Both offices upheld the disallowance, further citing DBM Local Budget Circular (LBC) No. 53, which prohibits LGUs from granting allowances if similar allowances are already granted by the national government. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to set aside the COA decision. He argued that Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 explicitly grants municipalities the power to provide additional allowances to judges stationed in their territory, provided finances allow. He contended that the DBM cannot use administrative circulars to restrict or amend the legislative powers granted to LGUs by substantive law.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipality of Naujan has the power to grant an additional allowance to a judge stationed in its locality despite the judge receiving RATA from the Supreme Court, and whether the prohibition in NCC No. 67 against collecting RATA from 'more than one source' applies to allowances sourced from local funds. Whether DBM NCC No. 67 and LBC No. 53 can validly restrict the power of LGUs to grant such allowances under the Local Government Code of 1991, and the validity of LBC No. 53, Section 3(e). Whether the GAA of 1993 (a general law) repealed the provisions of the LGC of 1991 (a special law) regarding LGU-granted allowances.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Commission on Audit is SET ASIDE, and Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53 is declared NULL and VOID.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Power of LGUs to Grant Allowances and Interpretation of 'More Than One Source': The Court ruled that Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA 7160 (LGC of 1991) is clear and unequivocal in granting LGUs the authority to provide additional allowances to judges. The only statutory condition is that the 'finances of the municipal government allow' the grant. This power is a cornerstone of local autonomy. The Court clarified that the prohibition in NCC No. 67 against collecting RATA from 'more than one source' refers to multiple national agencies. Because an LGU is not a national agency, the prohibition does not apply to allowances sourced from local funds. On the Hierarchy of Laws and Circulars and the Invalidity of LBC No. 53, Section 3(e): The Court held that an administrative circular cannot supersede a statute. Therefore, any DBM circular that imposes restrictions not found in the LGC is an ultra vires act. The Court declared Section 3(e) of LBC No. 53 void because it prohibited LGUs from granting allowances 'similar' to those granted by the national government, which is not found in the LGC. On Implied Repeal and General vs. Special Laws: The Court rejected the argument that the GAA of 1993 repealed the LGC's provision. Under the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant, a general law (GAA) does not nullify a special law (LGC). In the absence of an express repeal, the special law (LGC) remains an exception to the general rule provided in the GAA.
Main Doctrine
The Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) expressly empowers LGUs to provide additional allowances and benefits to judges and other national officials stationed in their municipality, subject only to the condition that LGU finances allow it. This power is an expression of the constitutionally mandated policy of local autonomy. Consequently, administrative circulars from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) that prohibit the grant of such allowances when 'similar' benefits are provided by the national government are void for exceeding the DBM's power of supervision and for violating the substantive provisions of RA 7160.