Melloria v. Jimenez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Raquel C. Melloria (Municipal Accountant) and Eduarda A. Casador (Municipal Treasurer) of the Municipality of Laak, Compostela Valley, are challenging the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA) affirming a Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2014-12-0013. This disallowance pertains to an excess amount of PHP 2,600,000.00 from cash advances for intelligence and confidential activities for the calendar year 2011. The total cash advance was PHP 4,100,000.00, but the COA, applying DILG Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 99-65, determined that the maximum allowable amount for such activities should not exceed PHP 1,500,000.00. The COA's computation was based on 30% of the PHP 5,000,000.00 allocated for peace and order efforts, after excluding funds for human rights advocacy and community development programs. Procedural History: The COA's Intelligence/Confidential Funds Audit Unit (ICFAU) issued ND No. 2014-12-0013, holding petitioners, along with Mayor Reynaldo B. Navarro and Sonia C. Quejadas, solidarily liable. Petitioners appealed to the COA Proper, but their appeal was denied. Subsequently, their motion for reconsideration was also denied by Minute Resolution No. 2019-008. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COA. The Petition: Petitioners argue that the COA gravely abused its discretion in affirming the Notice of Disallowance. They contend that the funds allocated for human rights advocacy and community development and monitoring programs are indeed part of the peace and order programs as defined under Item II.4 of DILG MC No. 99-65, and that the doctrine of ejusdem generis should apply because the enumeration in Item II.4 was not exhaustive. They also claim that the COA is estopped from issuing the disallowance due to prior credit notices for similar items in 2010 and 2012. The Office of the Solicitor General, however, argued that the COA did not err, as the excluded programs were not akin to those enumerated under peace and order concerns, and the COA was not estopped.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Audit gravely abused its discretion in affirming Notice of Disallowance No. 2014-12-0013. Whether the funds allocated for human rights advocacy and community development and monitoring programs are considered part of peace and order programs under DILG MC No. 99-65. Whether petitioners Raquel C. Melloria and Eduarda A. Casador are personally liable for the disallowed amount.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. While affirming the COA's disallowance of PHP 2,600,000.00, it excused petitioners Raquel C. Melloria and Eduarda A. Casador from returning the disallowed amounts, finding that they acted in good faith and performed only ministerial functions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COA gravely abused its discretion in affirming ND No. 2014-12-0013: The Court held that the COA did not gravely abuse its discretion. The computation of the maximum allowable amount for intelligence and confidential activities was based on Item II.2 of DILG MC No. 99-65, which limits such funds to 30% of the total annual amount allocated for peace and order efforts or 3% of the total annual appropriations, whichever is lower. The COA correctly excluded the funds for human rights advocacy and community development and monitoring programs from the peace and order budget because these items were not akin to the specific enumerations provided in Item II.4 of the same circular. The Court applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis, stating that while the enumeration in Item II.4 was not exhaustive, generic words are limited to things of a kindred nature with those particularly enumerated. The items for human rights advocacy and community development were found to be remotely connected, if at all, to the specific examples like purchase of firearms, payment of allowances for PNP/BFP/BJMP personnel, and other MOOE for these agencies. Therefore, the Municipality of Laak overspent its allowable intelligence and confidential funds by PHP 2,600,000.00. On the issue of whether the funds for human rights advocacy and community development are part of peace and order programs: The Court ruled in the negative. Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis to Item II.4 of DILG MC No. 99-65, the Court found that the enumerated items for peace and order concerns (e.g., purchase of firearms, allowances for PNP/BFP/BJMP, MOOE for these agencies) were specific. The programs for human rights advocacy and community development, as itemized in the budget, did not fall within the same class or import as the enumerated items. For instance, allocations for meals and snacks, association of barangay captains services, and tribal development programs were not sufficiently linked to peace and order concerns as defined by the circular. The Court found petitioners' claims that these programs helped minimize rebel presence to be unsubstantiated motherhood statements. On the issue of whether petitioners are personally liable for the disallowed amount: The Court ruled that petitioners Raquel C. Melloria and Eduarda A. Casador are excused from returning the disallowed amounts. The Court reiterated the principle that certifying officers who acted in good faith and performed ministerial functions are not civilly liable for disallowed expenditures, consistent with Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987 and Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Return in Madera v. Commission on Audit. Melloria, as municipal accountant, certified the obligation of the allotment, and Casador, as municipal treasurer, certified the availability of funds. These were deemed ministerial functions, requiring neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment, and were performed in good faith. They did not have a hand in deciding the fund limits or which activities could be charged, nor could they have prevented the cash advances authorized by the Mayor. Thus, they are not personally liable for the disallowance.
Main Doctrine
Certifying officers who perform purely ministerial functions in good faith are not civilly liable to return disallowed amounts. The Supreme Court clarified that while the Commission on Audit (COA) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the excess cash advances for intelligence and confidential funds, the petitioners, as municipal accountant and treasurer, were merely performing their duties as certifying officers. Their certifications pertained to the availability of funds and the obligation of allotments, which are ministerial acts. Therefore, consistent with jurisprudence and the rules on return of disallowed amounts, they are excused from personal liability due to their good faith.