RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, PRIMO T. LOMIBAO and ALICE MARIE C. OSORIO, Petitioners s. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Res!ondent G. R. No. "#$$%" Fe&r'ar( #, )**%
FACTS:
In 1996, pursuant to Resolution No. 313, series of 1995, of the Local Water Utilities Administration Administration LWUA!, the petitioners "ranted to themsel#es Representation and $ransportation Allo%ance RA$A!, rice allo%ance, clothin" allo%ance, &hristmas 'onus, producti#it( pa( and honorarium. In the post)audit of *etro &aria"a W ater +istricts +istricts accounts, said allo%ances and -onuses to petitioners %ere disallo%ed, appl(in" &A pinion No. 9/)015 dated Au"ust /, 199/, %hich declared that LWUA LWUA Resolution Resolution No. 313 series o f 1995, is contrar( to ection 13 of 2residential +ecree No. 19 other%ise 4no%n as the 2ro#incial Water Utilities Utilities Act of 19/3! %hich uneui#ocall( prohi-its local %ater district -oard mem-ers from recei#in" compensation in ecess of the allo%ed per diems. ISSUES:
1. %hether %hether the &A has has 7urisdicti 7urisdiction on to declare declare LWUA LWUA Resolut Resolution ion No. 313 series series of 1995, contrar( to the pro#isions of ection 13 of 2residential +ecree No. 198 . %hether %hether ection ection 13 of 2resident 2residential ial +ecree +ecree No. 19 19 prohi-its prohi-its the pa(ment pa(ment to petition petitioners ers of compensation and allo%ances in ecess of the allo%ed per allo%ed per diems8 diems8 and 3. %hether %hether petition petitioners ers should should refund refund the disallo% disallo%ed ed dis-urseme dis-ursements. nts. RULINGS:
$he upreme &ourt affirmed the uestioned &A decision %ith the *+I:I&A$IN that petitioners need not refund the allo%ances and honorarium recei#ed. $he issues posed in the instant petition had -een settled in De Jesus vs. Commission on Audit , %here the &ourt affirmed the &As &As disallo%ance of a similar "rant of -onuses and allo%ances under LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995. n the issue of 7urisdiction, it %as held that the &onstitution specificall( #ests in the &A the authorit( to determine %hether "o#ernment entities compl( %ith la%s and re"ulations in d is-ursin" "o#ernment funds, and to disallo% ille"al or irre"ular dis-ursements of the same. $his independent constitutional -od( is tas4ed to -e #i"ilant and conscientious in safe"uardin" the proper use of the "o#ernments, and ultimatel(, ultimatel(, the peoples propert(. It has the authorit( to in#esti"ate %hether directors, officials or emplo(ees of "o#ernment)o%ned and controlled corporations, li4e *&W+, are entitled to recei#e additional allo%ances and -onuses under applica-le la%s. If the rule %ere other%ise, administrati#e administrati#e a"encies, -( the mere act of issuin" a resolution, can put to nau"ht the -road and etensi#e po%ers "ranted to the &A -( the &onstitution. $his %ill pre#ent the &A from dischar"in" its constitutional dut( as an effecti#e, efficient and independent %atchdo" of the financial operations of the "o#ernment. :or this reason, &A cannot -e depri#ed of its 7urisdiction to pass upon the #alidit( of LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995. $he case of De Jesus li4e%ise Jesus li4e%ise put to rest the issue of entitlement of %ater district 'oard *em-ers to allo%ances other than per than per diems. diems. ection 13 of 2+ 19, as amended, reads;
Compensation. < =ach director shall recei#e a per diem, to -e determined -( the -oard, for each meetin" of the -oard actuall( attended -( him, -ut no director shall recei#e per diems in an( "i#en month in ecess of the eui#alent of the total per diems of four meetin"s in an( "i#en month. No director shall recei#e other compensation for ser#ices to the district. &itin" the earlier case of Baybay Water District vs. Commission on Audit , the &ourt ruled in De Jesus that the aforeuoted pro#ision epressl( prohi-its the "rant of RA$A, rice allo%ance, clothin" allo%ance, &hristmas -onus, producti#it( pa( and honorarium to 'oard mem-ers of %ater districts. n the uestion of refund, it %as also held in De Jesus that the assailed allo%ances and -onuses need not -e refunded. $his is so -ecause at the time such dis-ursements %ere made, the decision in Baybay Water District vs. Commission on Audit , %hich enunciated the rule prohi-itin" the "rant of allo%ances and -onuses other than per diems to 'oard mem-ers of %ater districts in accordance %ith LWUA Resolution No. 313, series of 1995, had not (et -een promul"ated. >ood faith %as thus considered -( the &ourt in holdin" that the recipients of the allo%ances and -onuses disallo%ed -( the &A need not refund the same.
