The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission on Audit’s (COA) decision disallowing the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentive granted to employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Region IV-A. The Court clarified that CNA incentives must be sourced solely from savings from the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), not from Engineering and Administrative Overhead (EAO). This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to specific budgetary guidelines and ensures that government funds are utilized strictly for their intended purposes, as well as clarifying the responsibilities of certifying officers and the obligations of employees who receive disallowed benefits.

Savings and Source: Can CNA Incentives Come From Engineering Funds?

This case arose from a Notice of Disallowance (ND) issued by the COA regarding the CNA incentive granted to DPWH Region IV-A employees for the calendar year 2008. The incentive, amounting to P3,915,000.00, was sourced from the Engineering and Administrative Overhead (EAO) of the regional office. The COA disallowed this disbursement, citing Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Budget Circular No. 2006-1, which explicitly states that CNA incentives should be funded solely from savings from the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE). The DPWH argued that the EAO and MOOE serve substantially the same purpose, making the use of EAO funds permissible. This prompted a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the CNA incentive. This involved interpreting the relevant administrative orders and budget circulars governing the grant of CNA incentives to government employees. The Court needed to determine if the DPWH’s interpretation of the permissible funding sources aligned with the established legal framework.

The Court began its analysis by reiterating the constitutional mandate of the COA as the guardian of public funds. It emphasized that the COA is empowered to determine and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures of government funds. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the COA’s authority to ensure that public funds are utilized for their intended purpose. This stems from the principle that public office is a public trust, and government resources must be managed responsibly.

The legal framework governing the grant of CNA incentives involves several key issuances. PSLMC Resolution No. 4, Series of 2002, authorized the grant of CNA incentives to employees in National Government Agencies (NGAs), State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), and Local Government Units (LGUs). It stipulated that the CNA incentive may be provided in recognition of the joint efforts of labor and management to achieve planned targets and services at a lesser cost. However, this resolution also outlined critical guidelines.

Section 1 of PSLMC Resolution No. 4 mandated that only savings generated *after* the signing of the CNA could be used for the incentive. Section 2 further required the inclusion of cost-cutting measures and systems improvements in the CNA to ensure the generation of savings. Building on this, Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 135, Series of 2005, confirmed the grant of CNA incentives but reiterated that the incentive must be sourced solely from savings generated during the CNA’s lifetime. A.O. No. 135 also clarified that CNA incentives could only be extended to rank-and-file employees.

DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1 provided further clarity and limitations. Item No. 7 of the circular specifically addressed the funding source for CNA incentives, stating:

7.1 The CNA Incentive shall be sourced solely from savings from released Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) allotments for the year under review, still valid for obligation during the year of payment of the CNA, subject to the following conditions:

The DBM circular made it unequivocally clear that CNA incentives could only be sourced from MOOE savings, effectively precluding the use of other funds like EAO. This provision was the cornerstone of the COA’s disallowance and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling.

Faced with these clear directives, the DPWH argued that EAO and MOOE serve substantially the same purpose, justifying the use of EAO funds. They cited a budget deliberation before the Committee on Appropriations, where a DPWH representative stated that EAO could cover overhead and operating expenses. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the cited exchange pertained to the 2011 GAA, not the 2008 disbursement in question. More importantly, the Court found nothing in the exchange to suggest that EAO could be used as a substitute for MOOE in funding CNA incentives.

Cuaresma, one of the certifying officers, argued that she relied on a memorandum issued by the DPWH Secretary authorizing the use of EAO funds. The Court dismissed this defense, pointing out that the same memorandum cited A.O. No. 135 as its basis and explicitly stated that the CNA incentive was subject to the usual accounting and auditing rules. As such, Cuaresma was obligated to ensure compliance with DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1.

Furthermore, the DPWH raised the issue of selective enforcement, claiming that other departments and regional offices had sourced CNA incentives from EAO without being disallowed by the COA. The Court rejected this argument as well. Citing People v. Dela Piedra, the Court stated that an erroneous performance of statutory duty does not constitute a violation of the equal protection clause unless intentional or purposeful discrimination is shown. The DPWH failed to provide any evidence of such discrimination.

Regarding the liability for the disallowed amount, the Court held that Cuaresma, as a certifying officer, was duty-bound to ensure compliance with the relevant regulations before certifying the availability of funds. Her failure to do so made her liable for the disallowance. The Court initially sided with the COA’s determination that passive recipients (DPWH IV-A employees) need not refund the benefits they received in good faith. However, after further consideration, the Court modified this aspect of the ruling.

The Court ultimately concluded that the DPWH IV-A employees who benefited from the incentive were also obligated to return the amounts they received under the principle of unjust enrichment. The Court emphasized that unjust enrichment occurs when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another without just or legal ground, requiring the return of the benefit. Article 22 of the Civil Code provides the statutory basis for this principle.

The Court reasoned that the DPWH IV-A employees received the CNA incentive without a valid basis or justification because it was released as a consequence of the certifying and approving officers’ erroneous application of DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1. Unlike ordinary monetary benefits, the CNA incentive involved the participation of employees in its negotiation and approval. This participation, the Court argued, should have made them aware of the requirements for the valid release of the incentive. In essence, they should have known they were undeserving of the benefit.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Commission on Audit (COA) committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentive paid to employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Region IV-A, which was sourced from Engineering and Administrative Overhead (EAO) instead of Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE).
What is a CNA incentive?	A CNA incentive is a benefit granted to government employees as a reward for their collective efforts in achieving cost-cutting measures and improving efficiency within their agency, it serves as motivation for increased productivity and better performance.
From where should CNA incentives be sourced?	According to DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1, CNA incentives must be sourced solely from savings from released Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE).
Why was the CNA incentive disallowed in this case?	The CNA incentive was disallowed because it was paid out of savings from the Engineering and Administrative Overhead (EAO), which is a violation of DBM Budget Circular No. 2006-1.
Who was held liable for the disallowed CNA incentive?	The certifying and approving officers of DPWH IV-A, as well as all the employees who received the CNA incentive, were held liable for the amount of the disallowance.
What is the principle of unjust enrichment?	The principle of unjust enrichment states that a person who receives something of value without a valid legal basis must return it to avoid unjustly benefiting at the expense of another. It is based on the concept of fairness and equity.
Why were the employees required to return the CNA incentive?	The employees were required to return the CNA incentive because they received it without a valid legal basis, as it was sourced from the wrong fund. Allowing them to keep it would constitute unjust enrichment at the expense of the government.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court affirmed the COA’s decision to disallow the CNA incentive and ruled that both the certifying/approving officers and the employee recipients are liable for the amount of the disallowance and must reimburse the amounts they received.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case serves as a clear reminder of the importance of strict adherence to budgetary guidelines in government spending. It also underscores the responsibility of certifying officers to ensure compliance with all relevant regulations. The ruling clarifies the obligations of employees who receive benefits that are later disallowed, emphasizing the principle of unjust enrichment.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REGION IV-A AND GENEVIEVE E. CUARESMA VS COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 237987, March 19, 2019