View full case

JUDGE TOMAS C. LEYNES v. COA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for certiorari seeking to reverse the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA), which denied the grant of a monthly allowance to petitioner Judge Tomas C. Leynes by the Municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. Judge Leynes, who was formerly assigned to the Municipality as the sole presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court, received a monthly allowance from the local funds of the Municipality starting in 1984. The Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan passed a resolution increasing the monthly allowance of Judge Leynes from P944 to P1,600. However, the Provincial Auditor and the COA later directed the Municipality to stop the payment of the allowance and require the immediate refund of the amounts previously paid.

The Provincial Auditor opined that the Municipality could not grant the allowance to Judge Leynes in addition to the allowance he was already receiving from the Supreme Court. The COA upheld the opinion of the Provincial Auditor and denied the appeal of Judge Leynes. The COA pointed out that the resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan failed to comply with the conditions outlined in a Local Budget Circular regarding the grant of allowances to judges and other national officials or employees by the local government units. Consequently, Judge Leynes only received the monthly allowance from the Municipality for the period between May 1993 and January 1994.

The case revolves around the grant of additional allowances to a municipal trial judge in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro. The Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan passed Resolution No. 101 in 1993, which granted the judge an additional allowance and increased his current representation and traveling allowance (RATA) to an amount equivalent to that received by Sangguniang members. The Commission on Audit (COA) opposed the grant, arguing that the municipality cannot give RATA to judges in addition to the RATA already received from the Supreme Court. COA relied on National Compensation Circular No. 67, the General Appropriations Act of 1993, and Local Budget Circular No. 53, which provide that RATA should only be payable from the programmed appropriations of the respective offices and that no one shall collect RATA from more than one source. Petitioner judge contends that the Local Government Code of 1991 empowers municipalities to grant allowances and other benefits to national government employees stationed within their jurisdiction.

The petitioner in this case is the Province of Camarines Sur. It argues that it has the authority under Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of the Local Government Code of 1991 to enact appropriation ordinances granting allowances and other benefits to judges stationed in its territory. The Local Government Code of 1991 imposes only one condition for this power, which is that "when the finances of the municipal government allow." The petitioner also asserts that the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) cannot amend or modify a substantive law like the Local Government Code of 1991 through mere budget circulars. The petitioner emphasizes that budget circulars must conform to the provisions of the law they seek to implement. The case also traces back the history of the grant of allowances to judges, starting with the issuance of Letter of Instruction No. 1418 dated July 18, 1984 by President Ferdinand E. Marcos. This instruction allowed local government units (LGUs) to pay additional allowances to judges assigned in their respective areas. The DBM later issued Circular No. 91-7 on June 25, 1991, which outlined the guidelines for the continued receipt of allowances by judges from LGUs. The circular stated that the payment of allowances would be voluntary and subject to the availability of local funds. It also specified that the allowances would only be given to judges who were already receiving them as of June 30, 1989 and would cease upon transfer of a judge to another local government unit.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Municipality of Naujan is allowed to grant a monthly allowance to a judge pursuant to Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA 7160, also known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

  2. Whether or not NCC No. 67, RA 7645, and LBC No. 53 repeal or amend the provisions of Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA 7160.

  3. Whether Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA 7160 was repealed by Section 36 of RA 7645.

  4. Whether a judge can receive allowances from LGUs in addition to the RATA from the Supreme Court.

  5. Whether or not the prohibition in National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 67 applies to local government units (LGUs) like the Municipality of Naujan.

  6. Whether or not Section 3, paragraph (e) of Local Budget Circular (LBC) No. 53 is valid.

  7. Whether or not Resolution No. 101 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan complied with the guidelines in LBC No. 53.

  8. Whether or not Resolution No. 101 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan is null and void.

  9. Whether or not the resolution of the Municipality of Naujan granting a monthly allowance to the petitioner judge complied with the law.

  10. Whether or not the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro erred in approving the said resolution.

RULING:

  1. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner judge. The Commission on Audit (COA) erred in opposing the grant of the monthly allowance by the Municipality of Naujan to the judge. The court held that the power of local government units (LGUs) to grant allowances to judges has been recognized since 1984 by virtue of LOI No. 1418 and is expressly provided in Sections 447, 458, and 468 of the Local Government Code. The national government, through DBM Circular No. 91-7, also recognized this power and provided guidelines for the continued receipt of allowances by judges from LGUs. Therefore, the judge is entitled to receive the allowance from the municipality.

  2. The court held that NCC No. 67, RA 7645, and LBC No. 53 did not repeal or amend the provisions of Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA 7160. It stated that an administrative circular cannot supersede a statute and that repeal of statutes by implication is not favored unless it is clear that the legislature intended to do so. Therefore, the provisions of Section 447(a)(1)(xi) remain in effect and the LGUs are allowed to grant allowances to judges.

  3. Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of RA 7160 was not repealed by Section 36 of RA 7645. There was no clear repeal of Section 447(a)(1)(xi) in RA 7645, and the presumption against implied repeals applies, especially when one law is special and the other is general.

  4. Judges can receive allowances from LGUs in addition to the RATA from the Supreme Court, as long as the allowances are not collected from more than one national agency.

  5. The prohibition in NCC No. 67 does not apply to LGUs like the Municipality of Naujan. NCC No. 67 is an administrative tool of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to prevent multiple allowances and standardize the grant of Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) by national agencies. It applies only to national funds administered by the DBM, not the local funds of LGUs.

  6. Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53 is invalid. It violates Section 447(a)(l)(xi) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) which allows LGUs to grant allowances to judges as long as their finances permit. LBC No. 53 effectively nullifies the statutory power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges and is unduly restrictive of their autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution.

  7. Resolution No. 101 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan complied with the guidelines in LBC No. 53. The approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro and the corresponding budgets of the municipality demonstrate compliance with the budgetary requirements and limitations of RA 7160.

  8. Resolution No. 101 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan is not null and void.

  9. The resolution of the Municipality of Naujan granting a monthly allowance to the petitioner judge fully complied with the law.

  10. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro did not err in approving the said resolution.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges is recognized and provided for in the Local Government Code of 1991.

  • The national government, through DBM Circular No. 91-7, has acknowledged and provided guidelines for the continued receipt of allowances by judges from LGUs.

  • An administrative circular cannot repeal or amend a statute.

  • Repeal of statutes by implication is not favored unless it is clear that the legislature intended to do so.

  • The presumption against implied repeal applies when one law is special and the other is general. (Maxim: generalia specialibus non derogant)

  • When construing a statute, force and effect should not be narrowly given to isolated clauses but to its spirit, broadly considering all its provisions together in one rational view.

  • In the context of NCC No. 67, the prohibition against collecting RATA from more than one source refers to another national agency and does not prevent a judge from receiving allowances from LGUs in addition to the RATA from the Supreme Court.

  • The power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges is protected by the principle of local autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution.

  • A circular must conform to the law it seeks to implement and should not modify or amend it.

  • The regularity of official acts is presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary.

  • An ordinance must be presumed valid unless there is evidence to the contrary.

  • The burden of proving non-compliance with the law lies with the Commission on Audit (COA).

  • The power of municipalities to grant allowances is in accordance with the constitutionally mandated policy of local autonomy and the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991.

  • The approval of the resolution by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro is presumed to have been done in compliance with its duty to review appropriation ordinances.