Commission on Audit Cebu v. Province of Cebu Facts: The Governor of Cebu, in accordance with Sec. 98 of the Local Government G overnment Code, appointed classroom teachers who have no items in the DECS plantilla to handle extension classes that would accommodate students in the public schools. The Province also had a scholarship program. When the COA conducted an audit, they found out that the salaries and personnel benefits of the teachers appointed by by the Governor and funds for the scholarship program were charged against the Special Education Fund (SEF). Some facts about the Special Education Fund (RA 5447) An act creating a special education fund to be constituted from the proceeds of proceeds of an additional real property tax and a certain portion of the taxes on Virginia-type cigarettes and duties on imported leaf tobaccos PD 464, Real Property Tax Code, imposed annual 1% tax on real property which shall accrue to the SEF SEF may be used for the following, under RA 5447 Organization and operation of such number of extension classes as may be needed to accommodate all children of school age including creation of positions of classroom teachers, head teachers, and principals for such extension classes Granting of government scholarships to poor but deserving students under RA 4009 COA’s argument: RA 5447 was repealed when the Local Government Code took effect, leaving the following provisions of the Code to govern the disposition of SEF Sec. 235. Additional Levy on Real Property for the Special Education Fund Sec. 272. Application of Proceeds of the Additional One Percent SEF Tax. Proceeds shall be allocated for the operation and maintenance of public schools, construction and repair of school buildings, facilities and equipment, educational research, purchase of books and periodicals, and sports development as determined and approved by the local school board Annual school board should give priority to the following: (1) construction, repair, maintenance, of buildings and facilities; (2) establishment and maintenance of extension of classes where necessary; Petitioner invokes the maxim expressio unuis es exclusion alterius . Since there was no mention of salaries and personnel benefits of teachers as lawful expenditure of the SEF S EF under the LGC, they have to be deemed as excluded.
Moreover, petitioner argues that under Sec. 99 of the LGC, local school boards are only allowed to determine “annual supplementary budgetary needs for the operation and maintenance of public schools” and “ supplementary local cost to meet such need”. They ar gue gue that such phrases mean that use of the budget of local school boards is limited to the maintaining public school buildings.
HELD: Contentions of the COA are without merit. A. Salaries and Personnel Benefits of Appointed Teachers 1. Basic precept of statcon: INTENT of the legislature is the controlling factor in the interpretation of a statute. Deliberations of the Senate o Deliberations of the HoR o The legislature intended the SEF to answer for the compensation of teachers handling extension classes. o 2. Repealing Clause of the Local Government Code “(a) The Provisions of Sections 3, a (3) and b (2) of RA 5447 regarding the SEF are hereby repealed…” Legislature is presumed to know the existing laws, whenever it tends to repeal a particular provision of o law, it does so expressly Failure to add specific repealing clause cl ause particularly mentionsing the statute to be repealed indicated that o the intent was not to repeal any an y existing law on the matter, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old laws 3. Doctrine of Necessary Implication Ec necessitate legis. o Every stature is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to o effectuate its object and purpose, or to make rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsisdiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its its terms.
o
In the case at bar, the services and the corresponding compensation of these teachers are necessary and indispensable to the establishment and maintenance of extension of classes
B. Scholarship Grants 1. C a s u s o m i s s u s p r o o m i s s o h a b e n d u s es t . A Person or thing omitted from an enumeration in a stature must be held to have been omitted intentionally. Scholarship grant was not among the projects for which the proceeds of the SEF may be appropriated Sec. 100 (c) and 272 of the Local Government Code substantially reproduced Sec 1 of RA 5447. Unlike the payment of salaries of teachers which falls under “establishment and maintenance of extension classes” and “operation and maintenance of public schools”, scholarship grant clause in RA 5447 was omitted in Secs. 100 and 272 of the Local Government Code.
