Abejo v COA (2022, G.R. No. 251967)

 Bernadette Abejo (Exec Dir of ICAB) v COA

June 14, 2022, G.R. No. 251967

Abejo approved the additional renumeration given to ICAB members who helped in the workload of ICPC when there was a heavy load of applications in 2008-2010. COA said the same had no legal basis. SC: the disallowance was valid, but Abejo, due to good faith, cannot be held liable to return.

Facts: 

    The 1995 Inter-Country Adoption Act (RA 8043) created ICAB, which is the central authority in matters relating to inter-country adoption and policy-making body for carrying out RA 8043. 

    The Inter-Country Adoption Placement Committee (ICPC) is under the direction of ICAB, is tasked to screen, review, evaluate, and eventually decide upon and approve applications of prospective adoptive parents (or PAPs Dossiers).

    Allegedly, there was a heavy load of applications from 2008-2010, thus, ICAB members were asked to help with the review of PAPs Dossiers. Unnumbered memoranda were issued by the undersecretary to compensate the ICAB members.

    COA disallowed the additional renumeration on the following basis: (1) grant has no legal basis, (2) contrary to DBM BC No. 2003-5 and Sec. 49 of RA 9970 (GAA), (3) the Legal Service of DSWD issued a memorandum denying the grant, and (4) Sec 5 of RA 8043 states that ICAB members are only entitled to a per diem of 1,500.

Issues: 

1. W/N COA correctly disallowed the additional remuneration given to ICAB members.

2. W/N Abejo, as Executive Director and approving officer, should be held liable.  

Held: The disallowance is AFFIRMED, but Abejo is ABSOLVED from her solidary liability to return the disallowed amount.

1. While additional work done outside of a government official's regular function may be compensated, the grant of such compensation must still be in accordance with the applicable laws and rules.

    Honorarium cannot be demanded as a matter of right, and the granting of the same must follow the relevant rules. RA 8043 and DBM BC No. 2003-5 prevents ICAB members from receiving additional compensation for the work they have done reviewing PAPs Dossiers. Further, this is not a special project as referred to in RA 9970 (Sec 49). 

    RA 8043 is clear as to the limit of the amount per diem the ICAB members are to receive.

    DBM BC No. 2003-5 prohibits the payment of honoraria to officers already receiving per diem, e.g. ICAB members. 

2. Badges of good faith could be appreciated in favor of Abejo. No prior disallowance of the same benefit has been adjudged against ICAB. There is also no precedent disallowing a similar case in jurisprudence.

Doctrines:

• general rule (procedural): 
• the filing of an MOR is an indispensable condition before the special civil action for certiorari could be availed of.
• XPNS according to Del Rosario v ABS-CBN (Sep 2020, G.R. No. 202481, etc).
• Madera Rules (Madera v COA, G.R. NO. 244128, Sept 8, 2020)
• set of rules in determining the liability of government officers and employees being made to return employee benefits that were disallowed in audit:
1. If a Notice of Disallowance is set aside by the Court, no return shall be required from any of the persons held liable therein.
2. If a Notice of Disallowance is upheld, the rules on return are as follows:
• If in good faith, in regular performance of official functions, and with the diligence of a good father of the family, they are not liable to return.
• If in bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, liable to return