The Supreme Court has affirmed the disallowance of Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives paid to Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) employees. The Court held that the incentives were improperly sourced from the Engineering and Administrative Overhead (EAO) instead of Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) funds, as required by Department of Budget and Management (DBM) circulars. This decision underscores the strict adherence required in the disbursement of public funds, emphasizing that government agencies must comply with specific budgetary guidelines when granting employee benefits. Those who received the improperly disbursed funds must return the amount, highlighting the personal financial accountability of public servants.
When Public Funds Stray: Examining the Legality of CNA Incentives at DPWH
This case revolves around the disbursement of Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives within the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Region IV-A. The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed the CNA incentives granted to DPWH employees, finding that they were sourced from an improper fund. At the heart of the dispute lies a conflict between the agency’s interpretation of fund usage and the COA’s strict enforcement of budgetary regulations. This case tests the boundaries of administrative discretion in the use of public funds and the extent to which government employees can receive benefits not explicitly authorized by law.
The core issue in this case is the validity of the CNA incentive disbursement. In 2008, the DPWH Central Office, authorized the grant of CNA incentives to its rank-and-file employees, sourced from savings generated from Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), completed projects, and Engineering and Administrative Overhead (EAO). DPWH Region IV-A released CNA incentives totaling P3,915,000.00 to its employees and officers. However, the COA issued a Notice of Disallowance (ND), asserting that the CNA incentive was improperly paid out of the EAO. This violated Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Budget Circular No. 2006-1, which stipulates that CNA incentives must be sourced solely from the MOOE.
The COA’s decision hinged on a strict interpretation of DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1. This circular explicitly states that CNA incentives must be sourced solely from savings from released Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) allotments. The DPWH, however, argued that the EAO and MOOE funds served substantially the same purpose. The DPWH cited budget deliberations in Congress where the reduction of MOOE was discussed, suggesting that EAO could cover administrative expenses. The Supreme Court did not accept this argument.
The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional mandate of the COA as the guardian of public funds. The COA is empowered to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures. The Court referred to the legal framework governing CNA incentives, including PSLMC Resolution No. 4, Series of 2002, A.O. No. 135, Series of 2005, and DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1. These regulations specify that CNA incentives must be sourced from savings generated after the signing of the CNA, and cost-cutting measures must be implemented to ensure savings.
Addressing the DPWH’s argument of fund equivalence, the Court found no support for the claim that savings from the EAO could be used to pay CNA incentives in lieu of MOOE. The cited congressional exchange was deemed irrelevant, as it pertained to the 2011 GAA, not the 2008 disbursement in question. The Court agreed with the COA’s observation that the House of Representatives merely confirmed the proposed budget for 2011 and did not authorize the use of EAO as a source of CNA incentives without complying with existing laws and regulations. Therefore, the COA correctly affirmed the ND.
Cuaresma’s defense of good faith reliance on the authority of then DPWH Secretary Ebdane was deemed insufficient. The Supreme Court noted that the memorandum authorizing the CNA incentive cited A.O. No. 135, Series of 2005, and specified that the incentive was subject to accounting and auditing rules. This indicated that the authority was not absolute and had to be implemented consistently with existing regulations, including DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1. Therefore, the certification of fund availability without ensuring compliance with the proper sourcing requirements constituted negligence.
The petitioner claimed that the COA was being selective in disallowing the subject CNA Incentive. Cuaresma argued that other departments and regional offices had sourced their CNA incentives from the EAO, and the COA had allowed those releases. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing People v. Dela Piedra, which held that an erroneous performance of a statutory duty does not constitute a violation of the equal protection clause unless intentional or purposeful discrimination is shown. The Court found that Cuaresma failed to present evidence of intentional discrimination by the COA.
While the COA correctly disallowed the CNA incentive, the Supreme Court modified the ruling regarding the liability of the DPWH IV-A employees who received the benefit. The COA had ruled that passive recipients need not refund the amounts received in good faith. The Court disagreed, holding that the DPWH IV-A employees were obliged to return the amounts under the principle of unjust enrichment. The Court reasoned that the employees received the CNA incentive without a valid basis or justification and at the expense of the government.
The Court emphasized the nature of CNA incentives as negotiated benefits, involving the participation of employees through their representatives. This participation gives employees the necessary information to understand the requirements for a valid CNA incentive release. When they received the subject benefit, they must have known they were undeserving of it. Therefore, the DPWH IV-A employees, along with the certifying and approving officers, were held liable for the amount of the disallowance, underscoring the financial responsibilities of both.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether the Commission on Audit (COA) erred in disallowing the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentive paid to DPWH employees, which was sourced from Engineering and Administrative Overhead (EAO) funds instead of Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE). The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the COA’s disallowance, emphasizing the strict adherence to budgetary guidelines. |
| What is a CNA incentive? | A CNA incentive is a benefit granted to government employees as a reward for their collective efforts in achieving planned targets and cost-cutting measures. It’s a negotiated benefit, meaning it is subject to collective bargaining agreements and is not automatically given. |
| Why was the CNA incentive disallowed in this case? | The CNA incentive was disallowed because it was sourced from the wrong fund. DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1 specifies that CNA incentives must be sourced solely from savings from released Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) allotments, not from Engineering and Administrative Overhead (EAO). |
| Who is responsible for refunding the disallowed amounts? | The Supreme Court held both the certifying and approving officers, as well as all the employees of the DPWH IV-A who received the CNA incentive, liable for the amount of the disallowance. They must reimburse the amounts they received through salary deduction or other modes of payment. |
| What is the principle of unjust enrichment, and how does it apply here? | Unjust enrichment occurs when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another without just or legal ground. The Supreme Court applied this principle, stating that the employees received the CNA incentive without a valid basis and at the expense of the government, thus requiring them to return the amounts received. |
| Can good faith excuse the refund of disallowed benefits? | While good faith may be considered in some disallowance cases, the Supreme Court did not excuse the employees from refunding the amounts. The Court emphasized that the employees’ participation in the CNA negotiation process should have made them aware of the requirements for a valid CNA incentive release. |
| What is the role of the COA in government expenditures? | The Commission on Audit (COA) is the guardian of public funds, tasked with ensuring that government expenditures are regular, necessary, and lawful. It has the power to disallow irregular or unauthorized disbursements of public funds. |
| What was the impact of DBM Circular No. 2006-1 in this case? | DBM Circular No. 2006-1 was critical because it explicitly stated the permissible sources of funds for CNA incentives. The DPWH’s violation of this circular by sourcing the incentive from EAO funds was the primary basis for the COA’s disallowance, which the Supreme Court upheld. |
This case serves as a potent reminder of the importance of fiscal responsibility and compliance with budgetary regulations within government agencies. The ruling underscores the need for government employees to be vigilant in ensuring that all financial transactions adhere strictly to established guidelines. By holding both approving officers and recipients accountable for improperly disbursed funds, the Supreme Court reinforces the principle that public office entails a high degree of financial accountability. It is the responsibility of every public office employee to ensure compliance in any government transaction.
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: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REGION IV-A AND GENEVIEVE E. CUARESMA VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 237987, March 19, 2019