MARINA v.

COA

G.R. No. 185812 January 13, 2015

(guys, di ko sure sa last two issues if pareho rba sila or ag first issue is more general and ag second is
case-specific)

Issue: Does the grant of allowances and benefits to the officers and employees of MARINA constitute
double compensation?

Ruling: Yes. Republic Act No. 6758 deems all allowances and benefits received by government officials
and employees as incorporated in the standardized salary, unless excluded by law or an issuance by the
Department of Budget and Management. The integration of the benefits and allowances is by legal
fiction.

The disallowed benefits and allowances of petitioner Maritime Industry Authority’s officials and
employees were not excluded by law or an issuance by the Department of Budget and Management.
Thus, these were deemed already given to the officials and employees when they received their basic
salaries. Their receipt of the disallowed benefits and allowances was tantamount to double
compensation.

Issue: In case of disallowance, who should be liable to refund the amounts released?

Ruling: Officers who acted in bad faith or were grossly negligent. With regard to the disallowance of
salaries, emoluments, benefits, and allowances of government employees, prevailing
jurisprudence provides that recipients or payees need not refund these disallowed amounts when they
received these in good faith. Government officials and employees who received benefits or allowances,
which were disallowed, may keep the amounts received if there is no finding of bad faith and the
disbursement was made in good faith.

On the other hand, officers who participated in the approval of the disallowed allowances or benefits
are required to refund only the amounts received when they are found to be in bad faith or grossly
negligent amounting to bad faith.

Issue: Who should be liable to refund the amounts released and paid to the officers and employees of
MARINA which were disallowed by COA?

Ruling: The approving officers and Erlinda Baltazar. The records do not show the reason why Erlinda
Baltazar, petitioner Maritime Industry Authority’s cashier, received high amounts for the allowances as
shown in the notices of disallowance.

The amount given to Erlinda Baltazar is exorbitant especially when contrasted with the other officers and
employees of petitioner Maritime Industry Authority receiving the same allowance. The disparity in the
amounts given to Erlinda Baltazar compared to the other officers and employees is too substantial to
consider her and the approving officers to be in good faith when Erlinda Baltazar received the amounts.
Thus, Erlinda Baltazar and the approving officers are solidarily liable to refund all amounts received by
Erlinda Baltazar based on what was disallowed by respondent Commission on Audit.