LEYNES vs. COA (Public Corporation)

G.R. No. 143596               December 11, 2003

JUDGE TOMAS C. LEYNES, petitioner,

vs.

THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), HON. GREGORIA S. ONG, DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and HON. SALVACION DALISAY, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, respondents

FACTS:

Petitioner Judge Tomas C. Leynes who was formerly assigned to the Municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro as the sole presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court thereof. As such, his salary and representation and transportation allowance (RATA) were drawn from the budget of the Supreme Court. In addition, petitioner received a monthly allowance of ₱944 from the local funds of the Municipality of Naujan starting 1984.

On March 15, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan, through Resolution No. 057, sought the opinion of the Provincial Auditor and the Provincial Budget Officer regarding any budgetary limitation on the grant of a monthly allowance by the municipality to petitioner judge, the Sangguniang Bayan unanimously approved Resolution No. 101 increasing petitioner judge’s monthly allowance from ₱944 to ₱1,600 (an increase of ₱656) starting May 1993. By virtue of said resolution, the municipal government (the Municipal Mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan) approved a supplemental budget which was likewise approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Office of Provincial Budget and Management of Oriental Mindoro. In 1994, the Municipal Government of Naujan again provided for petitioner judge’s ₱1,600 monthly allowance in its annual budget which was again approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Office of Provincial Budget and Management of Oriental Mindoro.

On February 17, 1994, Provincial Auditor Salvacion M. Dalisay sent a letter to the Municipal Mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan directing them to stop the payment of the ₱1,600 monthly allowance or RATA to petitioner judge and to require the immediate refund of the amounts previously paid to the latter. She opined that the Municipality of Naujan could not grant RATA to petitioner judge in addition to the RATA the latter was already receiving from the Supreme Court. 

No one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than one source.

Petitioner judge appealed to COA Regional Director Gregoria S. Ong who, however, upheld the opinion of Provincial Auditor Dalisay.

Petitioner judge appealed the unfavorable resolution of the Regional Director to the Commission on Audit. 

On September 14, 1999, the COA issued its decision affirming the resolution of Regional Director Gregoria S. Ong.

Respondent Commission on Audit opposes the grant by the Municipality of Naujan of the ₱1,600 monthly allowance to petitioner Judge Leynes for the reason that the municipality could not grant RATA to judges in addition to the RATA already received from the Supreme Court.

Petitioner judge filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but it was denied by the Commission. Hence instant petition.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM) CAN, BY THE ISSUANCE OF BUDGET CIRCULARS, RESTRICT A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT FROM EXERCISING ITS GIVEN LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES AND OTHER BENEFITS TO NATIONAL EMPLOYEES STATIONED OR ASSIGNED TO THEIR MUNICIPALITY FOR AS LONG AS THEIR FINANCES SO ALLOW.

RULING:

No, Respondent COA erred in opposing the grant of the ₱1,600 monthly allowance by the Municipality of Naujan to petitioner Judge Leynes.

In this case, RA 7160 (the LGC of 1991) is a special law which exclusively deals with local government units (LGUs), outlining their powers and functions in consonance with the constitutionally mandated policy of local autonomy. 

To rule against the power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges as what respondent COA would like us to do will subvert the principle of local autonomy zealously guaranteed by the Constitution. The Local Government Code of 1991 was specially promulgated by Congress to ensure the autonomy of local governments as mandated by the Constitution. By upholding, in the present case, the power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges and leaving to their discretion the amount of allowances they may want to grant, depending on the availability of local funds, we ensure the genuine and meaningful local autonomy of LGUs.

By prohibiting LGUs from granting allowances similar to the allowances granted by the national government, Section 3 (e) of LBC No. 53 practically prohibits LGUs from granting allowances to judges and, in effect, totally nullifies their statutory power to do so. Being unduly restrictive therefore of the statutory power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges and being violative of their autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution, Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53 is hereby declared null and void.

In sum, we hereby affirm the power of the Municipality of Naujan to grant the questioned allowance to petitioner Judge Leynes in accordance with the constitutionally mandated policy of local autonomy and the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991. We also sustain the validity of Resolution No. 101, Series of 1993, of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan for being in accordance with the law.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.