GR 244336; (October, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 244336 . October 06, 2020.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The Social Security System (SSS) granted Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives totaling P9,333,319.66 to its rank-and-file employees in the Western Mindanao Division for the years 2005 to 2008. The grant was purportedly based on a supplemental CNA, specifically Social Security Commission (SSC) Resolution No. 183. The Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Disallowance, finding the grant lacked legal basis and violated pertinent rules. The COA Regional Office and, subsequently, the COA Commission Proper affirmed the disallowance, ruling that the cited SSC Resolution was non-existent and that the fixed grant of P20,000 per employee contravened DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1. The COA also found violations regarding the use of savings and the failure to meet a required income target.
ISSUE
Whether the COA correctly disallowed the grant of CNA incentives and properly determined the liability of the approving/certifying officers and the recipient employees.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the COA Decision. The disallowance was proper as the grant lacked legal authority and violated established regulations. The Court upheld the legal principle that a claim for payment of public funds must be founded on a specific statutory or regulatory provision. The purported authority, SSC Resolution No. 183, was conclusively found to be non-existent. Furthermore, the grant violated DBM BC No. 2006-1, which prohibits predetermined fixed amounts for CNA incentives and mandates that such incentives be contingent upon and proportionate to documented cost-saving measures jointly undertaken by management and the employees’ organization. No such validated measures were shown.
On liability, the Court affirmed the COA’s ruling absolving the passive recipient employees from refunding the amounts received, as there was no finding that they participated in or were aware of the irregularities. However, the approving and certifying officers were held solidarily liable for the disallowed amount. The Court reiterated the doctrine that public officials are presumed to know the laws and rules governing their transactions. Their signatures on the disbursement vouchers constituted a positive representation of the transaction’s validity. Their failure to verify the existence of the foundational resolution and to ensure compliance with the controlling circulars negated any claim of good faith, making them liable for the illegal disbursement.