TESDA V COA

G.R. No. 196418, February 10, 2015

Facts
December 18, 1997 CSC Resolution No. 97-4684 provided for better working conditions and included hospitalization services and
annual mental, medical-physical examinations
The Civil Service commission issued MC 33 a reiteration of above resolution
DOLE Sec. Sto. Tomas issued AO 430 series of 2003 - to authorize the release of the challenged healthcare maintenance allowance of
P5,000.00 to all eligible DOLE employees, including the TESDAs workforce
COA issued AOM No. 04-005 on January 26, 2004, stating that DOLE Administrative Order No. 430, series of 2003 is clearly without legal
basis because there are no existing guidelines authorizing the grant of Health Care Maintenance Allowance and medical Allowance to all
government officials and employees
Atty. Rebecca Mislang, Officer In-Charge of the COA LAO-National, subsequently issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2006-015 dated
May 26, 2006 - addressed to then TESDA Director General Augusto Syjuco, indicating that the payment of the allowance had no legal
basis, it being contrary to Republic Act No. 6758 (Salary Standardization Law of 1989).
The TESDA filed an appeal before the COA Commission Proper,[9] assailing the disallowance by the LAO-National.
However, the COA Commission Proper promulgated the now assailed decision dated March 23, 2010, denying the appeal for lack of
merit.

Issue
Whether the healthcare maintenance allowance is valid
OR
Whether the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the disbursement for the Healthcare maintenance allowance

Held
NO, they are not valid. COA properly exercised its powers and discretion in disallowing the payment of the P5,000.00 as healthcare maintenance
allowance. It has the power to ascertain whether public funds were utilized for the purpose for which they had been intended by law. The COA the
guardian of public funds, vesting it with broad powers over all accounts pertaining to government revenue and expenditures and the uses of public
funds and property, including the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods for
such review, and promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations.[14] Thus, the COA is generally accorded complete discretion in the
exercise of its constitutional duty. the Court has sustained the decisions of administrative authorities like the COA as a matter of general policy, not
only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also upon the recognition that such administrative authorities held the expertise as to
the laws they are entrusted to enforce. Only when the COA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, may this Court entertain and grant a petition for certiorari brought to assail its actions.

MC No. 33 dealt with a health care program for government employees, generally understood as a system or plan of procedure that will draw the
desired benefits over a period of tie. It did not intend the health care program to be a single activity or endowment to achieve a fleeting goal, for it
rightfully concerned the institutionalization of a system of healthcare.
- contemplated to be a sustainable health care program instead of an intermittent healthcare provision.
- policy framework for working conditions at the workplace, which, aside from the health care program, included adequate office ventilation and
lighting, clean and adequate restroom facilities, potable drinking water, first aid kit and facilities, and hazard insurance. The irrefutable attributes of
such framework were perpetuity and sustainability.

TESDA says the allowance is a practical compliance with MC 33 because it allows for flexibility of the employee to choose physicians

SC - Whatever latitude was afforded to a government agency extended only to the determination of which services to include in the program, not
to the choice of an alternative to such health program or to authorizing the conversion of the benefits into cash. The allowance was not among any
of the services listed in the circular.

TESDA - Section 34 of the GAA for 2003 (RA 9206)

SC reliance on the GAA provision is misplaced. Section 34 says the personnel benefits costs of government officials and employees should be
charged against the funds from which their compensations are paid. It is not a source of right nor an authority to hastily fund any or all personnel
benefits without the appropriation being made by law.
- Article VI Section 29 (1) - no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law
- GAA should be purposeful, deliberate, and precise in its contents and stipulations
- GAA provisions not self-executory still subject to a program of expenditure to be approved by the President
- Section 34, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292) -
Program of Expenditure - The Secretary of Budget shall recommend to the President the years program of expenditure for each agency of the
government on the basis of authorized appropriations. The approved expenditure program shall constitute the basis for fund release during the
fiscal period, subject to such policies, rules and regulations as may be approved by the President.

- The mere approval by Congress of the GAA does not instantly make the funds available
- The funds authorized for disbursement under the GAA are usually still to be collected during the fiscal year. it is important that the release of
funds be duly authorized, identified, or sanctioned to avert putting the legitimate programs, projects, and activities of the Government in fiscal
jeopardy.

PD 1597 5 - (Further Rationalizing the System of Compensation and Position Classification in the National Government) states that the authority to
approve the grant of allowances, honoraria, and other fringe benefits to government employees, regardless of whether such endowment is
payable by their respective offices or by other agencies of the Government, is vested in the President.

* recipients of the allowance need not refund the 5k good faith - accepted the benefits honestly believing that they were receiving what they
were entitled to under the law
- the TESDA officials who granted the allowance to the covered personnel acted in good faith in the honest belief that there was lawful basis for
such grant.

Petition dismissed. COA decision affirmed but modified to the effect that all the officials of the petitioner who approved and all the employees of
the petitioner who received the healthcare maintenance allowance of P5,000.00 need not refund the same.