This Supreme Court case clarifies when government officials and employees must return disallowed benefits. The Court ruled that anniversary bonuses received in good faith need not be refunded, while extra cash gifts and honoraria, lacking proper legal basis, must be returned by approving officers who acted with gross negligence. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to specific legal and regulatory requirements when disbursing public funds.

Celebrating Milestones or Misspending Funds? Unpacking Anniversary Bonuses and COA Disallowances

The case of Nayong Pilipino Foundation, Inc. v. Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan, et al. (G.R. No. 213200, September 19, 2017) revolves around the Commission on Audit’s (COA) disallowance of certain benefits granted by the Nayong Pilipino Foundation, Inc. (NPFI) to its employees. These benefits included anniversary bonuses, extra cash gifts, and honoraria paid to members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) and Technical Working Group (TWG). The central legal question is whether the COA correctly disallowed these payments, and if so, who should be held liable for their refund.

The facts show that NPFI, in commemoration of its 30th and 35th founding anniversaries, granted anniversary bonuses to its officers and employees. Additionally, an extra cash gift was given in 2004. The COA issued Audit Observation Memoranda (AOMs), questioning the legal basis of these grants. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) later opined that the anniversary bonus was unauthorized because NPFI’s anniversary should be reckoned from its incorporation as a public corporation in 1972, not its initial incorporation as a private entity. This raised questions about the validity of payments made based on the earlier date.

In response to the AOMs, NPFI sought approval from the Office of the President (OP) and DBM, arguing that Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 263 and DBM National Budget Circular No. 452 authorized the anniversary bonus. They also cited DBM Budget Circular No. 2002-04 for the extra cash gift. However, the DBM found the payments improper, leading to a Notice of Disallowance (ND) issued by the COA Legal and Adjudication Office (LAO)-Corporate. The NPFI appealed, but the disallowance was upheld by the Adjudication and Settlement Board (ASB) and eventually by the COA itself.

NPFI then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the COA gravely abused its discretion. They contended that the anniversary bonus was authorized by A.O. No. 263 and DBM National Budget Circular No. 452, and the extra cash gift was supported by DBM Budget Circular No. 2002-04. They also argued that the COA should have considered the pending motion for reconsideration before the OP. As for the honoraria, NPFI claimed that the COA failed to prove that the payments exceeded the 25% ceiling set by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184. Finally, NPFI invoked good faith, urging the Court to rule in its favor.

The Supreme Court partly granted the petition, distinguishing between the anniversary bonus and the extra cash gift and honoraria. The Court emphasized the COA’s constitutional mandate as the guardian of public funds, with broad powers over government revenue and expenditures. This includes the authority to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures.

However, the Court also acknowledged the principle of good faith. It found that NPFI had acted in good faith when granting the anniversary bonus, relying on the honest belief that its founding anniversary was in 1969. Citing precedents like Blaquera v. Alcala (356 Phil. 678 (1998)) and De Jesus v. Commission on Audit (451 Phil. 814 (2003)), the Court held that recipients of the anniversary bonus need not refund the amounts received.

However, this finding of good faith did not extend to the extra cash gift and honoraria. The Court noted that DBM Budget Circular 2002-4 explicitly authorized the extra cash gift only for the year 2002. Therefore, NPFI could not reasonably rely on it as a basis for granting the benefit in 2004 without further approval. This represents a clear violation of existing regulations.

Regarding the honoraria, the Court cited Sison, et al. v. Tablang, et al. (606 Phil. 740 (2009)), which held that Section 15 of R.A. No. 9184 alone is insufficient to justify the payment of honoraria to BAC members without enabling guidelines from the DBM. As the payments in this case were made before the issuance of DBM Circular No. 2004-5, which set forth the guidelines, the disallowance was proper. The Supreme Court emphasized that compliance with the DBM guidelines is a necessary condition for the right to the honoraria to accrue.

The Court then addressed the issue of liability for the refund of the disallowed amounts. Citing Section 103 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 and Section 19 of the Manual of Certificate of Settlement and Balances, COA Circular No. 94-001, the Court reiterated that public officials directly responsible for unlawful expenditures are personally liable. While recipients who received the benefits in good faith are not required to refund, officers who approved the disallowed allowances or benefits in bad faith or with gross negligence must do so. This liability exists regardless of whether they personally received the disallowed benefit.

The Court clarified that NPFI’s Board of Trustees and officers, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, could not claim good faith in this instance. They were aware of the limitations of DBM Budget Circular 2002-4 and the need for DBM guidelines under R.A. No. 9184. Therefore, the Court held that NPFI’s Board of Trustees and officers who participated in the approval and authorized the release of the disallowed extra cash gift and honorarium were solidarily liable for their refund. This means that they are jointly and individually responsible for the entire amount.

The decision underscores the importance of due diligence and adherence to legal and regulatory requirements in the disbursement of public funds. Public officials are expected to be knowledgeable about the laws and regulations governing their actions and cannot claim good faith when they knowingly violate those provisions. This ruling serves as a reminder that public office is a public trust, and those who wield it are accountable for their actions.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the COA correctly disallowed the payment of anniversary bonuses, extra cash gifts, and honoraria by NPFI, and who should be liable for refunding these amounts. The court distinguished between benefits received in good faith and those disbursed in violation of clear legal guidelines.
Why was the anniversary bonus initially disallowed?	The anniversary bonus was initially disallowed because COA determined that NPFI calculated its anniversary from the wrong date. COA said NPFI should have used the date it was incorporated as a public corporation, not when it was initially a private entity.
Why did the Supreme Court allow the recipients to keep the anniversary bonus?	The Supreme Court allowed the recipients to keep the anniversary bonus because they received it in good faith, believing the initial anniversary calculation was correct. The Court applied the principle that benefits received in good faith need not be refunded.
Why was the extra cash gift disallowed?	The extra cash gift was disallowed because NPFI based its grant on a DBM circular that only authorized the gift for a specific year (2002). Extending the benefit without further approval was deemed a violation of existing regulations.
What was the issue with the honoraria payments?	The honoraria payments were disallowed because they were made before the DBM issued the necessary guidelines for such payments. The Supreme Court emphasized that the guidelines were a prerequisite for the legality of the honoraria.
Who is liable for refunding the disallowed extra cash gift and honoraria?	NPFI’s Board of Trustees and officers who participated in the approval and authorization of the extra cash gift and honoraria are solidarily liable for the refund. The Court found they could not claim good faith due to their awareness of the relevant legal limitations.
What does “solidarily liable” mean?	“Solidarily liable” means that each of the responsible individuals is liable for the entire amount of the disallowed payments. The government can recover the full amount from any one of them, or from all of them collectively.
What is the significance of “good faith” in this case?	“Good faith” is crucial because it determines whether recipients of disallowed benefits must return the money. If the benefits were received in good faith, recipients are typically not required to refund them, but those who authorized the payment without legal basis can still be liable.
What is the role of the Commission on Audit (COA)?	The COA is the government’s audit body responsible for ensuring accountability and transparency in the use of public funds. It has the power to disallow irregular, unnecessary, or excessive expenditures.
What is Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 263 and DBM National Budget Circular No. 452?	Administrative Order No. 263 authorizes government entities to grant anniversary bonuses. DBM National Budget Circular No. 452 clarifies the implementation, specifying eligibility and funding requirements for anniversary bonuses.

In conclusion, this case illustrates the delicate balance between granting employee benefits and adhering to strict legal and regulatory requirements. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that public officials must exercise due diligence and ensure a solid legal basis for all expenditures. Good faith can protect recipients, but it does not absolve approving officers from liability when they act with gross negligence or in violation of explicit legal provisions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Nayong Pilipino Foundation, Inc. v. COA, G.R. No. 213200, September 19, 2017