DECISION NO.

2019-098
March 29, 2019

Subject: Petition for Review of Dr. Andrew M. Ventura, Training Center Director, Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)-Regional Fisheries Training Center (RFTC),
New Visayas, Panabo City, Davao del Norte, in his personal capacity and as the
representative of the employees of the BFAR-RFTC, of Commission on Audit Regional
Office No. XI Decision No. 2015-17 dated December 9, 2015, which affirmed Notice
of Disallowance Nos. 12-001-101-(11) to 12-015-101-(11), all dated September 28,
2012, on the payment of Collective Negotiation Agreement Incentive for calendar
year 2011, in the total amount of P1,785,000.00

DECISION

FACTS OF THE CASE

Before this Commission is the Petition for Review1 of Dr. Andrew M. Ventura, Training Center Director, Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)-Regional Fisheries Training Center (RFTC), New Visayas, Panabo City, Davao del Norte,
in his personal capacity and as the representative of the employees of BFAR-RFTC, of Commission on Audit (COA) Regional
Office (RO) No. XI Decision No. 2015-17 dated December 9, 2015. The decision affirmed Notice of Disallowance (ND) Nos. 12-
001-101-(11) to 12-015-101-(11), all dated September 28, 2012, on the payment of Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA)
Incentive for calendar year (CY) 2011, in the total amount of P1,785,000.00.

The NDs were received by petitioner and other BFAR-RFTC employees on October 23, 2012. 2 An appeal from said NDs
was filed on March 27, 2013,3 which was denied under COA RO No. XI Decision No. 2015-17 dated December 9, 2015. A copy of
the decision was received by the petitioner on December 29, 2015.4 This petition was filed on January 13, 2016,5 within the
reglementary period of six months provided under Section 3, Rule VII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA.

For CY 2011, petitioner and other employees of BFAR-RFTC were paid CNA Incentives in the total amount of P144,000.00
per employee, or in the total amount of P2,160,000.00. Said CNA Incentives consisted of Medical and Dental Allowance, Social
Amelioration Allowance, Grocery Allowance, and Anniversary Bonus.

On post-audit, the Audit Team Leader (ATL) and the Supervising Auditor (SA) issued ND Nos. 12-001-101-(11) to 12-015-
101-(11) on September 28, 2012, disallowing the amount of P119,000.00 per RFTC employee, or the total amount of
P1,785,000.00, representing the amount in excess of the allowable limit of P25,000.00 per Department of Budget and Management
(DBM) Budget Circular (BC) No. 2011-5 6 dated December 6, 2011.

Details of the NDs are as follows:

Position/ Nature of
ND No. Persons Liable Amount
Designation Participation
12-001-101- Lourdes S. Abapo Administrative Payee P119,000.00
(11) Officer IV
12-002-101- Cipriano V. Abat Training Specialist I Payee 119,000.00
(11)
12-003-101- Judito P. Aquaculturist II Payee 119,000.00
(11) Baidiango
12-004-101- Rosalina G. Cacho Accountant I Payee 119,000.00
(11)
12-005-101- Wenefredo B. Security Guard Payee 119,000.00
(11) Cadayona, Jr.
12-006-101- Maria Lourdes B. Training Specialist I Payee 119,000.00
(11) Campeon
12-007-101- Jaime Alexander Administrative Aide Payee 119,000.00
(11) Canales I
12-008-101- Karen D. Training Specialist I Payee 119,000.00
(11) Candilosas
12-009-101- Rodulfo E. Training Specialist Payee 119,000.00
(11) Cardoza II
12-010-101- Wilfredo R. Security Guard Payee 119,000.00
(11) Dondoy
 12-011-101- Janet E. Gernal Administrative Aide Payee 119,000.00
(11) IV
12-012-101- Herminia D. Administrative Payee 119,000.00
(11) Labarete Assistant II
12-013-101- Alberto C. Administrative Aide Payee 119,000.00
(11) Lañojan, Jr. II
12-014-101- Lolita S. Pinoon Librarian Payee 119,000.00
(11)
12-015-101- Andrew M. Training Center For certifying as 119,000.00
(11) Ventura Director to the necessity
and lawfulness
of the charges;
for approving the
transactions; and
as payee.
Rosalina G. Cacho Accountant I For certifying as
to the
completeness
and propriety of
supporting
documents, and
as to the
availability of
cash.
Total P1,785,000.00

Director Ventura and Ms. Cacho, in their respective official capacities, were included as persons liable in all the NDs.

On March 27, 2013, petitioner filed an appeal7 from the NDs before the Regional Director (RD), COA RO No. XI, praying
that the NDs be set aside on the following grounds:

1. The audit observation based on DBM BC No. 2011-5, declaring the grant of the CNA Incentives for CY 2011 as
irregular, is baseless and premature.

2. The specific rules for the granting and payment of CNA Incentives provided under DBM BC No. 2006-1 8 were
substantially complied.

3. The CNA Incentives were ultimately sourced from the unencumbered savings of the agency which were
generated from cost reduction measures.

4. The payment of Anniversary Bonus was brought about by the exemplary service and attainment of fish
production quota by the agency.

5. The maximum allowable portion of the savings for distribution as CNA Incentives was observed.

6. The failure to pay the CNA Incentives as a one-time consolidated incentive at the end of year does not
necessarily render the payment thereof illegal.

7. The payment of Medical and Dental Allowance as Health Care Maintenance Program is legal.

8. The employees received the incentives in good faith and, thus, should not be made to refund the same.

In their answer, 9 the Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-ATL and the OIC-SA maintained the view that the grant of the questioned
CNA Incentives did not comply with the provisions of the laws, rules and regulations.

On December 9, 2015, the RD, COA RO No. XI, issued the decision denying the appeal and affirming the ND.

Hence, this Petition for Review.

ISSUE

The issue to be resolved is whether or not the petition is meritorious.

DISCUSSION

This Commission partially grants the appeal.

In view of the good faith of the 13 employees of BFAR-RFTC, they are no longer required to refund the disallowed
incentives. However, Director Ventura and Ms. Cacho remain solidarily liable, along with Atty. Benjamin Felipe S. Tabios, Jr.,
Assistant Director for Administrative Services, for recommending the approval of the grant of CNA Incentives, and Atty. Asis G.
Perez, Director, for approving the same.

This Commission finds that in granting the CNA Incentives, the BFAR-RFTC did not comply with several guidelines set for
the grant thereof. First, contrary to the allegations of the petitioner, DBM BC No. 2011-5 finds application in this case. Thus, the
incentives given to the employees in excess of P25,000.00 were properly disallowed. Section 3 of said circular is clear on this:

3.0 Supplemental Guidelines

xxx

3.5 The CNA Incentive for FY 2011 shall be determined based on the amount of savings generated by an
agency following the guidelines herein, but not to exceed P25,000.00 per qualified employee.

3.6 The payment of the CNA incentive for FY 2011 shall only be made after submission to the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM) of reports on accomplishments for the year, based on the physical and
financial plan submitted to DBM pursuant to National Budget Circular No. 1528 dated January 3, 2011.
(Emphasis supplied)

Second, the timing of the grant of the CNA Incentives likewise violated Section 5.7 of DBM BC No. 2006-1 which
mandates that the payment of the CNA Incentive shall be a one-time benefit after the end of the year. This means that the CNA
Incentives are given only after the implementation and completion of the agency’s programs/activities and projects in accordance
with the performance targets for the year. In this case, however, the grants were made not only once, but for several staggered
payments, which evidently violated the said provision.

Third, the BFAR-RFTC should not have granted the Social Amelioration, as well as the Grocery and Anniversary
Allowances, as these shall be referred and collectively paid as CNA Incentives under Section 5.4.1 of the same DBM BC No.
2006-1 which provides:

Section 5.4.1 All existing cash incentives in the CNAs in the form of allowances and benefits, such as staple food
allowance, rice subsidy, grocery allowance, inflation allowance, relocation allowance, SONA bonus,
bonuses other than the year-end benefit authorized under R.A. [Republic Act] No. 6686, as amended
by R.A. No. 8441, etc., shall be consolidated into a single cash incentive, and shall be referred to
and collectively paid as CNA Incentive.

Petitioner claims that the payment of the CNA Incentives was sourced from the savings realized from the cost-reduction
measures which the agency allegedly adopted. However, the details of such cost-cutting measures were not specified. On the
contrary, it must be noted that under DBM BC No. 2011-5, CNA Incentives shall be sourced solely from savings from the
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) allotments of the agency for the given year.

Petitioner also alleged that the grant of Anniversary Bonus was for the exemplary service and attainment of fish production
quota by the agency. This allegation does not hold water for failure to substantiate the same.

As to the liability for the refund of the disallowed CNA Incentives, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that public officials
who are directly responsible for or participated in making the illegal expenditures shall be solidarily liable for their
reimbursement.10

However, the SC held that by way of exception, passive recipients or payees of disallowed salaries, emoluments, benefits,
and other allowances need not refund such disallowed amounts if they received the same in good faith.11 Stated otherwise,
government official and employees who unwittingly received disallowed benefits or allowances are not liable for their
reimbursement if there is no finding of bad faith.12 Thus, this Commission rules that the 13 BFAR-RFTC personnel who
unwittingly received the CNA Incentives are not liable for their reimbursement.

Nevertheless, the other persons found to be liable under the NDs, i.e., Director Ventura, for certifying as to the necessity
and lawfulness of the charges and for approving the transactions, and Ms. Cacho, for certifying as to the completeness and
propriety of supporting documents and as to the availability of cash, cannot be said to be in good faith. Thus, they should be held
solidarily liable for the disallowed amount. Likewise, Atty. Tabios, Jr., who recommended the approval of the CNA Incentives,
and Atty. Perez, who approved the grant thereof, should be held solidarily liable for the disallowed amount. As approving
authorities and officials of the agency, they are presumed to know that the grants of the incentives were unlawful. Hence, they
authorities and officials of the agency, they are presumed to know that the grants of the incentives were unlawful. Hence, they
should be held liable.

RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review of Dr. Andrew M. Ventura is hereby PARTIALLY
GRANTED. Accordingly, Commission on Audit Regional Office No. XI Decision No. 2015-17 dated December 9, 2015 is
AFFIRMED insofar as the issuance of Notice of Disallowance Nos. 12-001-101-(11) to 12-015-101-(11), all dated September 28,
2012, on the payment of Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Incentives for 2011, in the total amount of P1,785,000.00.
However, the 13 employees of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) - Regional Fisheries Training Center
(RFTC), Panabo City, Davao del Norte, are no longer required to refund the amount they respectively received as CNA Incentives.

Dr. Andrew M. Ventura, who approved the grant, and Ms. Rosalina G. Cacho, who certified the completeness and propriety
of supporting documents and availability of cash, shall remain solidarily liable therefor.

The Audit Team Leader and the Supervising Auditor, Audit Group F, Province of Davao del Norte, are hereby directed to
evaluate the extent of participation of Atty. Benjamin Felipe S. Tabios, Jr., Assistant Director for Administrative Services, and
Atty. Asis G. Perez, Director, BFAR-RFTC, Panabo City, Davao del Norte, in the grant of the CNA Incentives for 2011, in the total
amount of P1,785,000.00, and issue a Supplemental Notice of Disallowance, if warranted.

(SGD.) MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO

Chairperson

(SGD.) JOSE A. FABIA (SGD.) ROLAND C. PONDOC

Commissioner Commissioner

Attested by:

(SGD.) NILDA B. PLARAS

Director IV
Commission Secretariat

Copy furnished:

Dr. Andrew M. Ventura

Training Center Director
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources-Regional Fisheries Training Center
Panabo City, Davao del Norte

The Audit Team Leader

The Supervising Auditor
Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources-Regional Fisheries Training Center
Panabo City, Davao del Norte

The Regional Director

Commission on Audit Regional Office No. XI
Davao City

The Director
Information Technology Office
Systems and Technical Services Sector

The Assistant Commissioners

National Government Sector
Commission Proper Adjudication and
Secretariat Support Services Sector
All of this Commission

ESZ/ERD/RNP/AGV
CMIS 2016-0695/Ref. No. 2016-302

1 Pursuant to Rule VII of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Audit (COA).
2 Rollo, pp. 153-167.
3 Rollo, p. 211.
4 As alleged in the petition, rollo, p. 24.
5 Stamp received on the first page of the petition, rollo, p. 25.
6 Supplemental Guidelines on the Grant of CNA [Collective Negotiation Agreement] Incentives for Fiscal Year 2011.
7 Appeal Memorandum, rollo, p. 211.
8 Grant of CNA Incentives.
9 Answer, rollo, p. 216.
10 Silang v. COA, G.R. No. 213189, September 8, 2015.
11 Id., citing Mendoza v. COA, G.R. No. 195395, September 10, 2013, 705 SCRA 306; Agra v. COA, 677 Phil. 608 (2011); Veloso v. COA, 672 Phil. 419 (2011); Singson v.
COA, 641 Phil. 154 (2010); Lumayna v. COA, 616 Phil 929 (2009); Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. COA, 551 Phil 878 (2007); Barbo v. COA, 589 Phil.
289 (2008); Magno v. COA, 558 Phil. 76 (2007); Benguet State University v. COA, 551 Phil. 878 (2007); Public Estates Authority v. COA, 541 Phil 412 (2007); Abanilla v.
COA, 505 Phil. 202 (2005); Home Development Mutual Fund v. COA, 483 Phil. 666 (2004); Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Government Service Insurance System v.
COA, 480 Phil. 861 (2004); Blaquera v. Alcala, 356 Phil. 678 (1998). See also Maritime Industry Authority v. COA, G.R. No. 185812, January 13, 2015.
12 Id., citing Justice Arturo Brion’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Technical Education and Skills Development Authority v. COA , G.R. No. 204869, March 11,
2014.