The Supreme Court Clarifies the Scope of University Board Powers and the Role of Good Faith in Disallowed Benefits

Ester B. Velasquez, et al. v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 243503, September 15, 2020

Imagine a university board, eager to reward its hardworking staff, decides to grant a quarterly rice subsidy and a special award. Their intentions are noble, but the legality of their actions comes under scrutiny. This scenario unfolded at Cebu Normal University (CNU), where the Board of Regents (BOR) faced a legal challenge from the Commission on Audit (COA). The case of Ester B. Velasquez, et al. v. Commission on Audit sheds light on the delicate balance between rewarding employees and adhering to legal constraints, and how good faith can play a pivotal role in the outcome of such disputes.

In this case, the BOR of CNU approved a special trust fund budget in 2003, which included a quarterly rice subsidy and the Kalampusan Award for its employees. However, these benefits were later disallowed by the COA, citing a lack of legal basis and violation of specific statutes. The central legal question revolved around whether the BOR had the authority to grant such benefits and, if not, who should bear the responsibility for the disallowed amounts.

The Legal Context: Understanding University Board Powers and Disallowed Benefits

The authority of university boards in the Philippines is governed by Republic Act No. 8292, which outlines the powers and duties of governing boards. Section 4(d) of this Act specifically addresses the disbursement of income generated by universities, stating that such funds can be used for instruction, research, extension, or other programs/projects of the university. The term “other programs/projects” has been a point of contention, as it must be interpreted in the context of academic purposes.

The principle of ejusdem generis—a legal doctrine used in statutory construction—plays a crucial role here. It suggests that general words following specific words in a statute are construed to include only things of the same kind as those specified. In the context of R.A. No. 8292, this means that “other programs/projects” should be related to instruction, research, and extension.

Moreover, the case of Benguet State University v. Commission on Audit (2007) provided a judicial interpretation of these provisions, clarifying that the power of the BOR to disburse funds is not plenary and must align with academic objectives. This ruling is significant because it establishes that benefits like the rice subsidy and Kalampusan Award, which are not directly tied to academic purposes, fall outside the BOR’s authority.

Another key legal concept in this case is the doctrine of good faith, which can absolve both approving officers and recipients from liability for disallowed amounts. The Supreme Court has consistently held that if officials act in good faith, believing they are authorized to grant benefits, they may not be held liable for refunds. This principle was further refined in the 2020 case of Madera v. Commission on Audit, which laid out specific rules on the liability of approving officers and recipients based on their actions and the nature of the disallowed benefits.

The Case Breakdown: From Board Resolutions to Supreme Court Ruling

The journey of this case began with the BOR of CNU approving a special trust fund budget in 2003, which included the quarterly rice subsidy and the Kalampusan Award. These decisions were made through Board Resolutions No. 18 and No. 91, respectively. However, in 2005, the COA issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) for these benefits, arguing that they lacked legal basis and violated Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1597 and Section 4(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1445.

The petitioners, former members of the BOR, appealed the NDs but were unsuccessful at the COA Legal Services Sector (LSS). They then filed a petition for review before the COA Commission Proper, which dismissed their appeal for being filed out of time. The petitioners argued that they acted in good faith and should not be held liable for refunds, citing the Benguet State University case.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on two main issues: the legality of the benefits and the liability of the petitioners. The Court affirmed the COA’s disallowance of the benefits, stating:

“Guided by the pronouncement of the Court in the case of Castro, it is clear that the judicial interpretation of Section 4(d) of R.A. No. 8292 in the case of Benguet State University must be applied retroactively.”

This meant that the BOR’s actions in granting the rice subsidy and Kalampusan Award were deemed beyond their authority, as these benefits did not align with academic purposes.

However, the Court also considered the petitioners’ good faith in authorizing these benefits. It noted:

“In this case, petitioners acted in good faith when they authorized the grant of rice subsidy allowance and the Kalampusan Award through the issuance of Board Resolutions in 2003 and 2004.”

Based on the principles established in Madera, the Court ruled that neither the approving officers nor the recipients were liable to refund the disallowed amounts. The decision emphasized that the rice subsidy was a reasonable form of financial assistance, and the Kalampusan Award was granted in consideration of services rendered, thus excusing their return under the Court’s rules.

Practical Implications: Navigating University Board Powers and Disallowed Benefits

The ruling in Ester B. Velasquez, et al. v. Commission on Audit has significant implications for university boards and similar governing bodies. It underscores the importance of aligning benefits with the statutory mandate of academic purposes, as outlined in R.A. No. 8292. Boards must carefully review their authority before granting any non-academic benefits to avoid potential disallowances.

For individuals and entities involved in such decisions, the case highlights the protective role of good faith. If officials can demonstrate that they acted with the belief that their actions were lawful, they may be shielded from personal liability for disallowed amounts.

Key Lessons:

• University boards must ensure that any benefits granted align with their statutory authority, focusing on academic purposes.
• Good faith can be a crucial defense against liability for disallowed benefits.
• Legal advice should be sought before implementing new benefits or programs to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the role of the Board of Regents in a university?

The Board of Regents is responsible for the governance of a university, including the management of its finances and the approval of programs and projects that align with its academic mission.

Can university boards grant non-academic benefits to employees?

Generally, no. Under R.A. No. 8292, university boards can only disburse funds for instruction, research, extension, or similar academic programs. Non-academic benefits like rice subsidies or awards for non-academic achievements are typically beyond their authority.

What happens if a benefit granted by a university board is disallowed by the COA?

If a benefit is disallowed, the COA may require the return of the disbursed funds. However, the liability for such returns can be mitigated if the approving officers and recipients can demonstrate good faith.

How does the doctrine of good faith apply to disallowed benefits?

Good faith can protect approving officers and recipients from liability if they can show that they believed their actions were lawful at the time. This belief must be reasonable and based on existing legal interpretations or practices.

What should university boards do to avoid disallowances?

Boards should ensure that any benefits or expenditures align with their statutory authority, seek legal advice, and review existing jurisprudence to ensure compliance with the law.

ASG Law specializes in educational law and governance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.