Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON
AUDIT
Regional Office No. VIII
Leyte Government Center, Candahug, Palo, Leyte
ROVIII Decision No.
___________
Date________________________
RE: Appeal for exclusion from liability of Aivy
Caindoy-Luciano, Traffic Operations
Officer II, Traffic Operations Management
Enforcement and Control Office
(TOMECO), Tacloban City, Leyte, from
Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2013-
006-100 (2012) dated October 8, 2013,
representing payment for cash incentives
and plaque of appreciation for the
awardees of the outstanding Traffic
Enforcers of Tacloban City in the total
amount of P54,500.00.
DECISION
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Before this Office is an Appeal for exclusion from liability filed, pursuant to Rule V
of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit, by Aivy Caindoy-
Luciano, Traffic Operations Officer II, Traffic Operations Management Enforcement and
Control Office (TOMECO), Tacloban City, Leyte, from Notice of Disallowance (ND) No.
2013-006-100 (2012), in the total amount of P54,500.00.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Records show that Aivy Caindoy-Luciano, herein Appellant, received Check No.
0002621197 from the Traffic Operations Management Enforcement and Control Office
(TOMECO), as cash advance for payment of cash incentives of P10,000.00 each to the five
(5) outstanding Traffic Enforcers of Tacloban City and P4,500.00 for payment of plaques of
appreciation and other incidental expenses.
On post-audit, the Audit Team Leader (ATL) issued Notice of Disallowance (ND)
No. 2013-006-100 (2012) dated October 8, 2013 and received by Appellant on October 31,
2013, on the ground that:
1. The cash advance was charged to the account Other Maintenance and Other
Operating Expenses (Other MOOE) of the TOMECO but verification of the
Page 1|6
Annual Budget for CY 2012 showed that there was no covering appropriation
for Other MOOE of the aforementioned office contrary to Section 4(1) 1 of P.D.
No. 1445,
2. The grant of cash gift as incentive to the five (5) outstanding City Traffic
Enforcers of the TOMECO has no legal basis and contrary to Sections 4(6), and
4(7)2 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, Government Auditing Code of the
Philippines.
3. Verification of the Annual Procurement Plan (APP) for CY 2012 disclosed that
three pieces’ acrylic plaque were not included in the APP of ther City
Government of Tacloban contrary to Section 7.2 of the Revised IRR of R.A.
No. 9184, which provide that:
7.2. No procurement shall be undertaken unless it is in accordance with
the approved APP, including approved changes thereto. The APP must
be consistent with the duly approved yearly budget of the Procuring
Entity and shall bear the approval of the HoPE or second-ranking
official designated by the HoPE to act on his behalf.
The following persons were determined to be liable for their respective participation:
Name of Employee Designation Nature of Participation
Aivy Caindoy- Traffic Operations Received the Check
Luciano Officer II
Juanito Cahanap City Traffic Enforcer Received the Payment
Randy Bayona City Traffic Enforcer Received the Payment
Noli Depalco City Traffic Enforcer Received the Payment
Evelyn Militante City Traffic Enforcer Received the Payment
Sherwin Almocera City Traffic Enforcer Received the Payment
Salvador G. Estudillo Chief, TOMECO Certified in the Obligation Request that
the charges to appropriation is necessary,
lawful and under his direct supervision
Vicente L. Dy III OIC, Budget Officer Certified in the Obligation Request the
existence of available appropriations
Flora M. Pepito Admin. Officer V Certified to the validity of the claim and
IAS completeness of supporting documents
1
Section 4. Fundamental principles. Financial transactions and operations of any government agency shall be
governed by the fundamental principles set forth hereunder, to wit:
1. No money shall be paid out of any public treasury or depository except in pursuance of an
appropriation law or other specific statutory authority.
2
Xxx
6. Claims against government funds shall be supported with complete documentation.
7. All laws and regulations applicable to financial transactions shall be faithfully adhered to.
Xxxx
Page 2|6
Name of Employee Designation Nature of Participation
Salvador A. Abina Jr. City Accountant Certified that charges to appropriation is
necessary, lawful and supporting
documents were valid, proper, and legal
Antonio C. Tan Dept. Head II Approved the payment
Representative of the
City Mayor
In her appeal dated February 3, 2021, filed with this Office on February 16, 2021, Ms.
Luciano, herein Appellant, requested to be relieved from liability for the following reasons:
1. She received the check and disbursed it according to its purpose and
immediately liquidated it right after the activity;
2. That Mr. Jojo Dy, the City Budget Officer, already replied on the said issue on
October 31, 2013 through Ms. Rosario C. Cuna, former Audit Team Leader of
the City during that time;
3. The cash advance amounting to P54,500.00 was duly liquidated right after the
activity which was her obligation;
4. The reasons for the disallowance were not part or under her control or
responsibility.
On September 3, 2021, the ATL and the Supervising Auditor (SA), herein Appellees,
filed before this Office their Answer, and offered the following arguments:
1. As the accountable person granted with the cash advance through Disbursement
Voucher No. 10-12-09-4142, and Check No. 0002621197, dated September 14,
2012, Appellant indeed performed her responsibilities in using the funds in
accordance with its purpose, as shown in her Liquidation Report containing the
signatures of the five (5) Traffic Enforcers who received the cash incentive and
a copy of the Official Receipt for the payment of the three (3) acrylic plaques.
However, contrary to the Appellants’ statement that her cash advance was
liquidated immediately right after the completion of the activity, as required in
COA Circular No. 97-002 dated February 10, 1997, the Appellants’ Liquidation
Report and Report of Disbursement were marked received at the Office of the
City Accountant only on August 7, 2013.
2. The letter of the City Budget Officer (CBO), dated October 31, 2013, received
by the former Audit Team Leader Rosario C. Cuna on April 1, 2014, could not
be considered as an Appeal as it was not addressed to the Regional Director and
no proof of payment of the filing fee was attached therein, in violation of the
2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit.
3. In the said Letter of the CBO, it was stated that the cash advance was charged to
the budget for Traffic Management Program and not the Other Maintenance and
Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) of the TOMECO. Upon review of the
Annual Budget of the City of Tacloban, the MOOE indeed had a line item for
Traffic Management Program with Expense Code No. 989-94, However, the
Page 3|6
Registry of Allotment and Obligation (RAO) showed that the budget of the
TOMECO under the second Object of Expenditure on Maintenance and Other
Operating Expenses (MOOE) were mostly used for wages of Traffic Enforcers
under Job Order status and other incidental expenses, and the Obligation
Request attached to the Disbursement Voucher of the appellants’ cash advance
was charged to MOOE with Account Code No. 969 supporting the Audit
Teams’ conclusion that there was no appropriation for the cash advance since
the CBO charged it to Account Code No. 969 instead of Account code No. 989-
94 which was the account specifically indicated in the main budget of the
TOMECO.
ISSUE
Whether or not the appeal is meritorious.
DISCUSSION
As shown, the Appellant filed the appeal on February 15, 2021 which is more than (7)
seven years after she received the ND on October 31, 2013 and already exhausted the
statutory period of six months or 180 days within which to file an appeal as prescribed under
Section 48 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1445. However, in the interest of substantial
justice and considering the argument of the Appellant that Mr. Jojo Dy already replied on the
said issue on October 31, 2013 acknowledge received on April 1, 2014 by Ms. Rosario C.
Cuna, former Audit Team Leader of the City during that time, as well as her argument that
the reasons for the disallowance were not part or under her control or responsibility, we
consider discussing the case on the merits.
The disallowance is proper on the following reasons:
The cash advance was charged to the account Other Maintenance and Other
Operating Expenses (MOOE) of the TOMECO but verification of the Annual Budget
for the CY 2012 showed that there was no covering appropriation for Other MOOE
of the aforementioned office contrary to Section 4. (1) of PD No. 1445 which
provides that:
Section 4. Fundamental Principles. X x x
(1) No money shall be paid out of any public treasury or depositary
except in pursuance of an appropriation law or other specific statutory
authority”
The grant of cash gift as incentive to the five (5) outstanding Traffic Enforcers of
TOMECO has no legal basis and contrary to Section 4. (6) and (7) of P.D. No. 1445 which
provides in part:
Section 4. Fundamental Principles. X x x
(6) Claims against government funds shall be supported with complete
documentation.
Page 4|6
(7) All laws and regulations applicable to financial transactions shall be faithfully
adhered to.
Moreover, Section 339 of R.A. No. 7160 provides that no cash advance shall be
granted to any local official or employee, elective or appointive, unless made in accordance
with the rules and regulations as the COA may prescribe.
The purpose of the cash advance was to cover payment of cash gift and acrylic
plaques of appreciation each for the awardees of the Outstanding Traffic Enforcers in
connection with the 3rd Foundation Anniversary Celebration of the TOMECO. Verification
of the Annual Procurement Plan (APP) for CY 2012 disclosed that the three pieces’ acrylic
plaque were not included in the APP of the City Government of Tacloban City contrary to
Section 7.2 of the Revised IRR of R.A. No. 9184, which provides that:
“7.2. No procurement shall be undertaken unless it is in accordance with
the approved APP, including approved changes thereto. The APP must be
consistent with the duly approved yearly budget of the Procuring Entity and
shall bear the approval of the HoPE or second-ranking official designated by the
HoPE to act on his behalf.”
However, the participation of the Appellant is as payee of the cash advance check, by
merely receiving the cash advance and disbursed it according to its intended purpose,
believing in good faith that the transaction was legal and proper. Aside from the fact that
there was no benefit received by the Appellant on the transaction, she was merely designated
by her superiors to act as Special Disbursing Officer based on Office Order No. 12-09-762
issued to her dated September 12, 2012.
Section 39, Chapter 9, Book 1 of the Administrative Code of the Philippines provides
for the civil liability for acts done by a subordinate in the official duties:
Section 39. Liability of Subordinate Officers. -No subordinate officer or
employee shall be civilly liable for acts done by him in good faith in the
performance of his duties. However, he shall be liable for willful or negligent
acts done by him which are contrary to law, morals, public policy and good
customs even if he acted under orders or instructions of his superiors.
There was no evidence offered showing that Appellant acted in bad faith when she
received the check and disbursed the funds to the recipients. In fact, Appellant was only
designated as Special Disbursing Officer for a specific disbursement only. Appellant also
had limited responsibilities which was to disburse the amount to the recipients for the
specified purpose and nothing more.
There was no evidence showing any act of negligence in the performance of her
duties as Special Disbursing Officer. Furthermore, Section 16.1 of the Rules and Regulations
on the Settlement of Accounts states that the liability of public officers and other persons for
audit disallowance shall be determined by the duties and responsibilities or obligations of the
officers concerned, as well as the extent of their participation in the disallowed transactions.
We also believe that the reasons for the disallowance were not part or under the control and
responsibility of the Appellant.
Page 5|6
RULING
WHEREFORE, Notice of Disallowance No. 2013-006-100 (2012) dated October 8,
2012, in the total amount of P54,500.00, is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION,
in that Aivy Caindoy-Luciano is excluded from liability under the disallowance. This
decision is not yet final and subject to automatic review by the Commission Proper pursuant
to COA Resolution No. 2021-037 dated December 20, 2021.
ATTY. ARNEL T. JARANILLA
Director III
ATJ/LAC/ruc Officer-in-Charge
Page 6|6
