The Supreme Court affirmed the disallowance of Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) back payments to employees of the Balayan Water District (BWD), emphasizing that COLA was already integrated into standardized salaries under Republic Act No. 6758. However, the Court made a distinction, absolving passive recipients of the disallowed funds—those BWD employees who received the payments without participating in the decision-making process—from the obligation to refund the amounts. This ruling clarifies the responsibilities of government officials in disbursing funds and the protection afforded to employees who receive benefits in good faith.

Accrued Allowances or Integrated Compensation: Who Bears the Cost of Misinterpreted Law?

This case revolves around the disallowance of COLA back payments to employees of the Balayan Water District (BWD). The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed these payments, arguing that COLA had already been integrated into the employees’ standardized salaries as mandated by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6758, also known as the Salary Standardization Law (SSL). This law aimed to consolidate allowances into a standardized pay scale to eliminate compensation disparities among government personnel. The central legal question is whether the COA correctly applied the provisions of R.A. No. 6758 and whether BWD officials and employees should be held liable for the disallowed payments.

The factual background involves a decision by BWD’s Board of Directors (BOD) to grant COLA payments to employees in installments, covering accrued amounts from 1992 to 1999. However, the COA issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) for payments made in 2010 and 2011, leading to appeals and ultimately, the Supreme Court case. The COA’s position was that local water districts were not covered by Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 97, which authorized COLA payments to government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). Even if LOI No. 97 applied, the COA argued that employees must have been receiving COLA prior to July 1, 1989, the effectivity date of R.A. No. 6758, to be entitled to continued payments. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the COA acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the employees’ entitlement to accrued COLA and whether the petitioners acted in good faith.

Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 is central to the resolution of this case. It states that all allowances are generally deemed included in the standardized salary, except for specific non-integrated benefits. These exceptions include:

(a) Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA); (b) Clothing and laundry allowances; (c) Subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; (d) Hazard pay; (e) Allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and (f) Such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the [Department of Budget and Management (DBM)].

The Court has consistently held that Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 is self-executing, meaning that the integration of allowances into standardized salaries occurred automatically upon the law’s effectivity, even without specific DBM issuances. As the Supreme Court explained in Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit,^[17]

Action by the Department of Budget and Management is not required to implement Section 12 integrating allowances into the standardized salary. Rather, an issuance by the Department of Budget and Management is required only if additional non-integrated allowances will be identified.

Given that COLA was not among the allowances specifically excluded, it was deemed integrated into the standardized salary. Therefore, the COA correctly disallowed the COLA back payments. The Court emphasized that the legislative policy behind R.A. No. 6758 was to standardize salary rates and eliminate multiple allowances, which caused compensation disparities among government personnel.

Another key aspect of this case is the issue of good faith concerning the refund of the disallowed amounts. The petitioners argued that they acted in good faith, relying on a previous Supreme Court ruling, Metropolitan Naga Water District v. Commission on Audit (MNWD).^[13] They claimed that in MNWD, the Court ruled that local water districts were included in the provisions of LOI No. 97 and that there was no need to establish that employees were already receiving COLA prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6758. However, the Court clarified that the circumstances of this case differed from those in MNWD. In MNWD, the COLA back payments were made pursuant to a Board Resolution passed in 2002. In contrast, BWD’s BOD authorized the release of COLA back payments in 2006, after the DBM had issued National Budget (NB) Circular No. 2005-502.

DBM NB Circular No. 2005-502 explicitly prohibited the payment of allowances, including COLA, that were already integrated into the basic salary, unless otherwise provided by law or ruled by the Supreme Court. The circular also stated that agency heads and responsible officials who authorized such payments would be held personally liable. Thus, the Court found that the responsible officers of BWD could not claim good faith because they were aware of the DBM circular prohibiting the COLA payments at the time the resolution was passed. Good faith, in the context of COA disallowances, is defined as honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances that should prompt inquiry. It also entails an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another.

However, the Supreme Court made a crucial distinction regarding the BWD employees who were mere passive recipients of the disallowed payments. These employees received the COLA back payments without participating in the decision-making process or being aware of any irregularity in the disbursement. The Court cited Silang v. Commission on Audit,^[24] which held that passive recipients of disallowed salaries, emoluments, benefits, and other allowances need not refund such amounts if they received them in good faith. The rationale is that these employees had no knowledge of the illegality of the payments and genuinely believed they were entitled to the benefit.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the COA’s disallowance of the COLA back payments to BWD employees. It found that the COLA was already integrated into the employees’ standardized salaries under R.A. No. 6758. While the responsible officers of BWD were not considered to have acted in good faith due to the existence of DBM NB Circular No. 2005-502, the Court absolved the passive recipients of the disallowed payments from the obligation to refund the amounts. This decision reinforces the principle that government employees who receive benefits in good faith, without knowledge of any irregularity, should not be penalized by requiring them to return the funds.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The main issue was whether the COA correctly disallowed the COLA back payments to BWD employees, arguing that these allowances were already integrated into their standardized salaries under R.A. No. 6758. The Court also considered whether the responsible officers and employees acted in good faith.
What is R.A. No. 6758?	R.A. No. 6758, also known as the Salary Standardization Law (SSL), aimed to standardize salary rates among government personnel and eliminate multiple allowances to address compensation disparities. It generally integrated all allowances into the standardized salary, with a few specific exceptions.
What is the significance of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758?	Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 lists the allowances that are specifically excluded from integration into the standardized salary. These include Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), clothing and laundry allowances, hazard pay, and other allowances as determined by the DBM.
Who are considered passive recipients in this case?	Passive recipients are the BWD employees who received the COLA back payments without participating in the decision-making process or being aware of any irregularity in the disbursement. These employees were deemed to have acted in good faith.
What is the effect of DBM NB Circular No. 2005-502?	DBM NB Circular No. 2005-502 prohibited the payment of allowances, including COLA, that were already integrated into the basic salary, unless otherwise provided by law or ruled by the Supreme Court. This circular was a key factor in determining whether the responsible officers of BWD acted in good faith.
What does ‘good faith’ mean in the context of COA disallowances?	In the context of COA disallowances, good faith refers to honesty of intention, freedom from knowledge of circumstances that should prompt inquiry, and an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another.
Why were the BWD employees absolved from refunding the disallowed amounts?	The BWD employees were absolved from refunding the disallowed amounts because they were considered passive recipients who acted in good faith. They received the payments without knowledge of any irregularity and genuinely believed they were entitled to the benefit.
Why were the BWD officers not considered to be in good faith?	The BWD officers were not considered to be in good faith because the DBM NB Circular No. 2005-502 was existing at the time of the payment. They should have known that the COLA was integrated already to the employee’s salaries.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to clear legal and administrative guidelines in disbursing government funds. It also highlights the protection afforded to government employees who receive benefits in good faith, ensuring that they are not unduly penalized for errors made by those in positions of authority. Understanding the nuances of these rulings is crucial for both government officials and employees to ensure compliance and protect their rights.

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: Balayan Water District (BWD) v. COA, G.R. No. 229780, January 22, 2019