DECISION NO.

________

Subject: Consolidated Motions for

Reconsideration of Mayor Benjamin
C. Abalos, Jr., and Vice Mayor
Edward G. Bartolome, et al., all of
the City Government of
Mandaluyong, of Commission on
Audit (COA) Decision No. 2018-160
dated January 29, 2018, which
affirmed COA National Capital
Region-Local Government Sector
Decision No. 2015-009 dated August
25, 2015 and Notice of Disallowance
Nos. 14-05-101(13) dated July 10,
2014; 14-17-101(13), 14-19-101(13),
14-22-101(13), 14-23-101(13), all
dated July 22, 2014; and 14-25-
101(13) dated August 7, 2014, in the
total amount of P8,837,004.00,
representing the payment of
Personnel Economic Relief
Allowance, bonus, and Cash Gift to
the legislative contractual personnel
of the city for calendar year 2013

RESOLUTION

Before this Commission are the Consolidated Motions for Reconsideration

(MRs) of Mayor Benjamin C. Abalos, Jr., and Vice Mayor Edward G. Bartolome, et
1

al.,2 all of the City Government of Mandaluyong, of Commission on Audit (COA)

Decision No. 2018-160 dated January 29, 2018, which affirmed COA National
Capital Region (NCR)-Local Government Sector (LGS) Decision No. 2015-009
dated August 25, 2015 and Notice of Disallowance (ND) Nos. 14-05-101(13) dated
July 10, 2014; 14-17-101(13), 14-19-101(13), 14-22-101(13), 14-23-101(13), all

1
Pursuant to Section 10, Rule X, 2009 Revised Rules of Procedures of the Commission on Audit (COA), as
amended by COA Resolution No. 2011-006 dated August 17, 2011.
2
Antonio DS. Suva, Jesus C. Cruz, Edward G. Bartolome, Francisco Esteban, Alexander C. Sta. Maria and
Atty. Jimmy D. Lacebal.
dated July 22, 2014; and 14-25-101(13) dated August 7, 2014, in the amounts of
P750,778.00, P689,975.50, P754,947.50, P4,439,765.50, P900,038.50 and
P1,301,499.00, respectively, or in the total amount of P8,837,004.00, representing the
payment of Personnel Economic Relief Allowance (PERA), bonus, and Cash Gift to
the legislative contractual personnel of the city for calendar year 2013.

Mayor Abalos and Vice Mayor Bartolome, et al., received COA Decision No.
2018-160 on July 27, 2018,3 and filed their MRs on August 2, 20184 and August 9,
2018,5 respectively, thus, the MRs were filed within the 30-day reglementary period
prescribed by the rules.

Mayor Abalos seeks exclusion from among the persons liable in the ND on
the ground that he had not participated in the disallowed transaction, and that the
affairs and the funds of the Legislative Branch of the City of Mandaluyong are not
within the scope of his authority, as the same is lodged with the Vice Mayor. Thus,
he should not be held liable for the payments even if he is the Local Chief Executive
of the city.

On the other hand, Vice Mayor Bartolome, et al., anchor their arguments on
the following grounds:

1) The grant of benefits is based on Department of Budget and

Management (DBM) Budget Circular (BC) No. 2010-1 6
dated April 28, 2010 and DBM BC No. 2013-2 7 dated
November 13, 2013.

2) The contracts of services duly executed by and between the

employees and the city provide that they are entitled to the
benefits that city employees are entitled to.

3) They acted in good faith in giving the benefits to the

legislative contractual employees of the city.

After evaluation, this Commission notes that Mayor Abalos has no

involvement in the disallowed transaction. Records do not show that he participated
in the grant of the disallowed benefits to the legislative and technical staff of the city

3
Certificate of Service, rollo, p. 505.
4
Stamped receipt on the Motion for Reconsideration of Mayor Benjamin C. Abalos, Jr. by the Office of the
Commission Secretariat; rollo, p. 523.
5
Stamped receipt on the Motion for Reconsideration of Vice Mayor Edward G. Bartolome, et al. by the
Office of the Commission Secretariat; rollo, p. 530.
6
Rules and Regulations on the Grant of the Year-End Bonus and Cash Gift for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 and
Years Thereafter.
7
Advance Payment of the Remaining Half Balance or Balance of the Year-End Bonus and/or Cash Gift to
National Government Personnel for FY 2013.

2
 who were hired under contracts of service. Section 16.1 of the 2009 Rules and
Regulations on the Settlement of Accounts8 is instructive on the determination of
persons liable for an audit disallowance, viz:

The liability of public officers and other persons for audit

disallowances/charges shall be determined on the basis of (a) the
nature of the disallowance/charge; (b) the duties and
responsibilities or obligations of officers/employees concerned;
(c) the extent of their participation in the disallowed/charged
transaction; and (d) the amount of damage or loss to the
government x x x.

Well-settled is the rule that the liability of the officers and other persons for an
audit disallowance depends on their respective duties, responsibilities or obligations,
as well as the extent of their participation in the disallowed transaction. In this case,
Mayor Abalos was held liable in the ND for being the Local Chief Executive of the
city. However, records show that the processing, approval and payment of the
disallowed benefits were all performed by the other city officials, without Mayor
Abalos’s intervention and participation. This Commission holds that, not having
participated in the disbursement of the funds, there is no cogent reason to hold Mayor
Abalos liable therefor.

Likewise, Ms. Anna Marie P. Miranda, Disbursing Officer of the city, should
be excluded because the processing and approval of the transaction were all
performed by other city officials and her participation was confined only as being the
payee of the check for cash advance and the distribution/releasing of payments to
service contractuals or claimants.

On the MR of Vice Mayor Bartolome, et al., this Commission finds that the
grounds raised are mere rehash of the arguments in the Petition for Review, which
were already discussed in the assailed COA decision.

On the other hand, as regards the employees who merely received the benefits
but had no participation in the approval and release thereof, the Supreme Court in the
case of Jessica M. Chozas, et al. vs. Commission on Audit and Dr. Mariano C. De
Jesus and Hermogena A. Bautista vs. Commission on Audit,9 held that:

The natural consequence of a finding that the allowances

and benefits were illegally disbursed, is the consequent obligation
on the part of all the recipients to restore said amount to the
government coffers. Such directive is in accord with Article 22 of
the Civil Code, which states that, “[e]very person who through an
8
Prescribed in COA Circular No. 2009-006 dated September 15, 2009.
9
G.R. No. 226319/G.R. No. 235031 dated October 8, 2019.

3
 act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or
comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter
without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. This
principle of unjust enrichment applies when, “(i) a person is
unjustly benefited; and (ii) such benefit is derived at the expense
of or with damages to another.

This strict stance is evident from the Court’s recent

pronouncements in Rotoras,10 James Arthur T. Dubongco,
Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer II of Department of
Agrarian Reform Office-Cavite in Representation of Darpo-
Cavite and All its Officials and Employees v. Commission on
Audit,11 and Department of Public Works and Highways v. COA, 12
where the Court ordered the full restitution of all benefits
unlawfully received by government employees. Furthermore, the
court in Rotoras stressed that the defense of good faith shall no
longer work to exempt them the payees from such obligation, viz.:

The defense of good faith, heretofore, is no longer

available for members of governing boards and
officials who have approved the disallowed
allowance or benefit. Neither would the defense be
available to the rank-and-file should the allowance
or benefit have been the subject of collective
negotiation agreement negotiations. Furthermore,
the obligation to return for the rank-and-file shall be
limited only to what they actually received. xxx
(Underscoring supplied)

As regards the movants who were held liable as approving/certifying officers,

they cannot claim good faith on their failure to observe Civil Service Commission
Memorandum Circular No. 40,13 series of 1998. As held by the Supreme Court
in Casal vs. COA, et al.:14
 
The failure of these petitioners-approving officers to observe all
these issuances cannot be deemed a mere lapse consistent with
the presumption of good faith. Rather, even if the grant of
incentive award were not for the dishonest purpose as they

10
G.R. No. 211999. August 20, 2019.
11
G.R. No. 237813, March 5, 2019.
12
G.R. No. 237987, March 19, 2019.
13
Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointment and Other Personnel Actions.
14
G.R. No. 149633, November 30, 2006.

4
 claimed, the patent disregard of the issuances of the President
and the directives of COA amounts to gross negligence, making
them liable for the refund thereof. (Underscoring supplied)

Hence, they remain liable pursuant to Section 10315 of Presidential Decree No.
1445.16

RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Consolidated Motions for

Reconsideration of Mayor Benjamin C. Abalos, Jr., and Vice Mayor Edward G.
Bartolome, et al., all of the City Government of Mandaluyong, of Commission on
Audit (COA) Decision No. 2018-160 dated January 29, 2018 is hereby
PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance (ND) Nos. 14-05-
101(13) dated July 10, 2014; 14-17-101(13), 14-19-101(13), 14-22-101(13), 14-23-
101(13), all dated July 22, 2014; and 14-25-101(13) dated August 7, 2014, in the
total amount of P8,837,004.00, representing the payment of Personnel Economic
Relief Allowance, bonus, and Cash Gift to the legislative contractual personnel of the
city for calendar year 2013 is hereby AFFIRMED. However, Mayor Benjamin
Abalos, Jr. and Ms. Anna Marie P. Miranda, Disbursing Officer, are excluded from
among the persons liable under the NDs. The other persons held liable in the NDs
shall remain solidarily liable for the disallowance but the passive recipients of the
disallowed benefits are required to refund the amount that they actually received.

MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO
Chairperson

With Concurring
and Dissenting Opinion

JOSE A. FABIA ROLAND C. PONDOC

Commissioner Commissioner

Attested by:
15
General liability for unlawful expenditures. Expenditures of government funds or uses of government
property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee found to be
directly responsible therefor.
16
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines. NILDA B. PLARAS
Director IV
5 Commission Secretariat
Copy furnished:

Oliva Firme and Associates Law Firm

c/o Atty. Nesauro H. Firme
Counsel for Benjamin Abalos, Jr.

Edward G. Bartolome
Antonio DS. Suva
Jesus C. Cruz
Francisco O Esteban
Alexander C. Sta. Maria
Atty. Jimmy. D. Lacebal
All of the City Government of Mandaluyong
Mandaluyong City, 1550

The City Mayor

The City Accountant
City Government of Mandaluyong
Mandaluyong City, 1550

The Directors
National Capital Region, Local Government Sector
Information Technology Office, Systems and Technical Services Sector

The Assistant Commissioners

Local Government Sectors
Commission Proper Adjudication and Secretariat Support Services Sector

ESZ/ERT-EEL/DVG/JDGD-MKDG/GAM
CPCN 2015-813