Querubin v. Regional Cluster Director
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, Members of the Board of the Bacolod City Water District (BCWD), received various allowances and benefits between January 1-December 31, 1999, pursuant to Resolution No. 313, series of 1995, of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). Procedural History: The State Auditor disallowed these payments on the ground that they contravened Section 13 of Presidential Decree No. 198, as amended. Petitioners' appeals to the COA Regional Office No. VI, the COA Central Office (Legal and Adjudication Office-Corporate), and their subsequent motion for reconsideration were all denied. The Petition: Petitioners sought to annul the decisions of the COA, raising the issues of whether the allowances and bonuses were prohibited under Section 13 of PD 198, as amended, and whether they should refund the disallowed disbursements.
Issue(s)
Whether the allowances and bonuses granted to petitioners are prohibited under Section 13 of PD 198, as amended. Whether petitioners should refund the disallowed disbursements.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the disallowance of the monetary benefits granted to petitioners but modified the ruling by stating that petitioners need not refund the additional compensation received in 1999, as they received the same in good faith.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the allowances and bonuses granted to petitioners are prohibited under Section 13 of PD 198, as amended: The Court reiterated the ruling in De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, which applied Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit. Section 13 of PD 198, as amended, unequivocally prohibits the grant of bonuses and allowances other than per diems to members of the Board of Directors of Water Districts. The Court emphasized that the law clearly limits the compensation to authorized per diems and explicitly states that no other compensation shall be received. LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995, which authorized these additional benefits, was found to be non-conformant with the said provision of PD 198. The prohibition is absolute, leaving no room for discretion by water districts in paying other forms of compensation. On whether petitioners should refund the disallowed disbursements: The Court, applying the principle of good faith established in Blaquera v. Alcala, ruled that petitioners need not refund the disallowed allowances and bonuses. The petitioners received these benefits in 1999, prior to the promulgation of the Baybay Water District case which clarified the illegality of such payments. At the time of receipt, they acted under the honest belief that LWUA Board Resolution No. 313 was valid and that the payments were legally due. There was no indication of bad faith or knowledge of the illegality of the payments when they received them. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice and considering their good faith, the refund was dispensed with.
Main Doctrine
Members of the Board of Directors of Water Districts are prohibited from receiving allowances and bonuses other than per diems as provided under Section 13 of PD 198, as amended. However, those who received such disallowed benefits in good faith prior to the promulgation of Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit need not refund them.