Sambo vs.
COA
Gr No. 223244
June 29, 2017
PERALTA, J.
Facts
QUEDANCOR is a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC)
created under Republic Act No. 7393. Petitioners Rhodelia L. Sambo (Samba) and
Loryl J. Avila (Avila) are the Acting Regional Assistant Vice President and Regional
Accountant, respectively, of QUEDANCOR, Regional Office V.
In September 12, 2008, the Audit Team Leader (ATL)/Residcnt Auditor in
QUEDANCOR of COA Naga City issued an order disallowing disbursement and
payments in the total amount of ₱94,913.15.
The reason for the disallowance by the A TL was that the payees for the YEB,
PerB and PIB are casual employees and, therefore, not entitled to receive the benefits
and allowances. The appointments were merely covered by Special Orders issued by
the QUEDANCOR President and Chief Executive Officer (COE) and were without
approval of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Hence, the employees' contracts of
services are not governed by the CSC laws, rules and regulations. The A TL stated that
the nature of the employment of the payees is in the nature of contracts of service or job
orders. Being such, their employment cannot be classified as government service
because there is no employer and employee relationship between them and
QUEDANCOR. Hence, they are not entitled to receive the benefits enjoyed by
government employees like the YEB, PerB and PIB.
The officers, together with the payees named in ND No. REG. 08-01- 101, filed a
motion for reconsideration with the A TL, but the same was denied.
On February 18, 2010, petitioners and the concerned employees’ payees elevated the
matter to the COA Regional Director in Region V by filing a Memorandum for the
appellants. In her answer to the appeal, the ATL maintained that the disallowance was
proper in its entirety and reiterated that appellants were not entitled to the subject
benefits.
In view of the submission of the CSC approved Plantilla of Casual Appointments by
Quedancor effective September 7, 2007, the Regional Director of COA Regional
Office (RO) V lifted the disallowance on the PerB equivalent to the pro-rated amount of
₱2,000.00 from each of the five payees, or a total of ₱l0, 000.00. Thus, the total
disallowed amount of ₱41,815.50 as stated in the ND was reduced to ₱31,815.50
broken down as follows: ₱6,815.50 for YEB, ₱15,000.00 for PerB and ₱10,000.00 for
PIB.
A Motion for Reconsideration dated May 11, 2015 was filed by petitioners and Atty.
Renato Z. Enciso (one of the payees for the grant for medical reimbursement) but the
same was denied in the Resolution dated October 15, 2015.
Issue
Whether or not the petitioners are liable for the disallowance as they are only
subordinates.
Ruling
Yes, they are liable.
Presidential Decree No. 1445 spells out the rule on general liability for unlawful
expenditures:
Section 103. General liability for unlawfitl expenditures. Expenditures of government
funds or uses of government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a
personal liability of the official or employee found to be directly responsible therefor.
Under this provision, an official or employee shall be personally liable for unauthorized
expenditures if the following requisites are present, to wit: (a) there must be an
expenditure of government funds or use of government property; (b) the expenditure is
in violation of law or regulation; and (c) the official is found directly responsible therefor.
On the part of the approving officers, they shall only be required to refund if they are
found to have acted in bad faith or were grossly negligent amounting to bad faith.
In the present case, we take note that petitioners are not disputing the amount of
disallowance which was lowered to ₱84,9l3.15 from the amount stated in the ND which
is ₱94,913.15.
Jurisprudence holds that, absent any showing of bad faith and malice, there is a
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. However, this
presumption must fail in the presence of an explicit rule that was violated. For instance,
in Reyna v. COA, 37 this Court affirmed the liability of the public officers therein,
notwithstanding their proffered claims of good faith, since their actions violated an
explicit rule in the Land Bank of the Philippines' Manual on Lending Operations.
of them.
