 |
|||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Hence, the present petition. The Issues As asserted by petitioners, the issues in the present case are two-fold. First, did the COA commit grievous error in relying on AO 103 instead of PD 198? And second, should petitioners refund the alleged excess per diems they received in the total amount of ₱68,000?5 The Court's Ruling The petition is unmeritorious. PD 198 and AO 103 are not irreconcilable; It is a basic principle in statutory construction that when faced with apparently irreconcilable inconsistencies between two laws, the first step is to attempt to harmonize the seemingly inconsistent laws.6 In other words, courts must first exhaust all efforts to harmonize seemingly conflicting laws and only resort to choosing which law to apply when harmonization is impossible.7 In the present case, petitioners posit that AO 103 and PD 198 are conflicting and so maintain that PD 198, a law, must prevail over AO 103, a mere executive issuance. This Court, however, need not choose between PD 198 and AO 103 as there is no irreconcilable conflict between them. Section 13 of PD 198, as amended by RA 9286, provides:
Meanwhile, Section 3(c) of AO 103 states:
Plainly stated, PD 198 allows the BWD to prescribe per diems greater than ₱l50 per member for each meeting, subject to the approval of the LWUA, while AO 103 prescribes a limit on the total amount of per diems a director can receive in a month. There is clearly no conflict between PD 198 and AO 103, as AO 103 does not negate the power of the LWUA to approve applications for per diems greater than ₱l50. The conflict lies between AO 103 and MC 004-02, which prescribed a per diem of ₱8,400 for each director every meeting, not exceeding four (4) meetings in a month-way beyond the ₱20,000 cap provided under AO 103. Thus, the question is begged: can the President overrule MC 004-02 by issuing AO 103? The answer is a resounding yes. Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
The President's power of control was explained in Province of Negros Occidental v. Commissioners, Commission on Audit8as "the power to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the President over that of the subordinate officer." As the LWUA is a government-owned and controlled corporation,9 it is subject to the control of the President and its rulings and issuances can be modified and set aside by the President.10 MC 004-02 was, thus, effectively abrogated when President Arroyo limited the monthly per diems to ₱20,000 in AO 103. Necessarily, directors of GOCCs can no longer receive per diems in excess of ₱20,000 in a month after AO 103 took effect. Petitioners were properly ordered to reimburse With that said, petitioners argue that they received the excessive per diems in good faith and, following this Court's rulings in Blaquera v. Alcala11 and De Jesus v. Commission on Audit,12 they should not be made to reimburse the subject amounts. The COA refutes petitioners' claim of good faith,13 asserting that AO 103 was published in Malaya Newspaper on September 3, 2004 and petitioners admitted receiving a copy of the same on September 16, 2004. Yet, petitioners still accepted the fourth check for the fourth board meeting in the amount of ₱8,400 each. For the COA, this negates petitioners' defense of good faith.14 Preliminarily, it bears pointing out that Section 7 of AO 103 requires the publication of the administrative order in two (2) newspapers of general circulation for its effectivity, viz:
Clearly, the effectivity of AO 103 does not hinge upon the receipt of a copy thereof by the affected offices. Whether or not the LWUA actually received a copy of the AO is of no moment. AO 103 is unequivocal that it "shall take effect IMMEDIATELY upon its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Thus, AO 103 became effective upon its publication on September 3, 2004. This means that AO 103 was already effective when the third and fourth checks were issued on September 15 and 16, 2004. As. correctly pointed out by the COA, petitioners' claim of good faith is, therefore, unfounded. Further, the cases cited by petitioners in support of their position are inapplicable. Consider: In Blaquera, the disallowed amounts were released prior to the issuance of AO 29 which regulated the release of the incentive awards.1âwphi1 Meanwhile, in the instant case, AO 103 was issued after the effectivity of PD 198 and MC 004-02. Thus, the more recent Casal v. Commission on Audit15is more apt where the Court stressed that: First, while the incentive benefits in Blaquera were for CY 1992 and paid prior to the issuance of A.O. 29 on January 19, 1993, the incentive awards subject of the instant petition were released in December of 1993. When, therefore, the heads of departments and agencies in Blaquera erroneously authorized the incentive benefits to the employee, they did not then have the benefit of the categorical pronouncement of the President in A.O. 29 x x x. (emphasis supplied) Plainly, in the case at bar, the payment of the per diems was uncalled for inasmuch as AO 103 was issued after and superseded MC 004-02. In like manner, our ruling in De Jesus relied upon by petitioners finds no application in the present case. The main issue in De Jesus was whether in the prohibition under PD 198 that "[ n Jo director shall receive other compensation for services to the district," the term "compensation" also includes "Representation and Transportation Allowance, bonuses and other benefits disallowed therein." In clarifying, the Court held that petitioners cannot be made accountable given the previously unclarified ambiguity in the decree. We held:
Such is not the case here where AO 103 categorically and clearly ordered the discontinuance of per diems in excess of ₱20,000.1âwphi1 There is no room for interpretation and so petitioners' failure to adhere to AO 103 is unwarranted and cannot be countenanced. Petitioners BWD directors each received ₱33,600 for the month of September 2004. Petitioners must, therefore, reimburse the amount they received in excess of the allowed ₱20,000, that is, ₱l3,600 each or the aggregate amount of ₱68,000. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. Decision No. 2012-150 dated September 25, 2012 and the Resolution dated February 27, 2015 of the Commission on Audit, Commission Proper, are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. WE CONCUR: MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Footnotes *No part. 1 Rollo, pp. 39-43. Penned by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido Tan and Commissioners Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Heidi L. Mendoza. 2 Id. at 18-19. 3 Id. at 9. 4 Id. at 26-29. 5Id. at 8. 6 Office of the Solicitor General v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 199027, June 9, 2014, 725SCRA 469. 7 Dreanrwork Construction, Inc. v. Janiala, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 466, 474-475. 8 G.R. No. I 82574, September 28, 20 10, 63 I SCRA 431,441-442. 9 Espinas v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 198271, April I, 2014, 720 SCRA 302. (The Local Water Utilities Administration [LWUA] is a government-owned and controlled corporation [GOCC] created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. [PD] 198, as amended, otherwise known as the 'Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973); National Marketing Corporation v. Arca, No. L-25743, September 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 648 (controlled by the government, such as the NAMARCO, partake of the nature of government bureaus or offices, which are administratively supervised by the Administrator of the Office of Er:onomic Coordination, ''whose compensation and rank shall be that of a head of an Executive Department" and who "shall be responsible to the President of the Philippines under whose control his functions ... shall be exercised."). 10 Id. 11 G.R. No. 1094.06, September 11, 1998, 295 SCRA 366. 12G.R. No. 149154, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 666. 13 Rollo, pp. 77-85. 14 Id. at 83. 15 G.R. No. 149633, November 30, 2006, 509 SCRA 138, 148. 16 Supra note 12, at 677. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||||||||||||
