HON. RTC JUDGES MERCEDES G. DADOLE (Executive Judge, Branch 28), ULRIC R. CAÑETE (Presiding Judge, Branch 25), AGUSTINE R. VESTIL (Presiding Judge, Branch 56), HON. MTC JUDGES TEMISTOCLES M. BOHOLST (Presiding Judge, Branch 1), VICENTE C. FANILAG (Judge Designate, Branch 2), and WILFREDO A. DAGATAN (Presiding Judge, Branch 3), all of Mandaue City, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.

G.R. No. 125350           December 3, 2002 

EN BANC

CORONA, J.:

Topic: Art. 2, CC. 

FACTS: 

1. The yearly appropriations act enacted by Sangguniang Lungsod of Mandaue City gives monthly allowances amounting to Php1,286.00 which herein petitioners used to receive in 1986. In 1991, Mandaue City increased it to Php1,500.00 for each judge.

2.  On 15 March 1994, the Department of Budget and Management issued Local Budget Circular No. 55 (LBC55) providing that  additional allowances in the form of honorarium ranging from Php700 to Php1,000 may be granted subject to conditions. One of the conditions is that the grant is not mandatory. LBC55 also provided for its immediate effectivity without publishing.

3. Pursuant to this, the Mandaue auditor reduced the allowances of herein petitioners to Php1,000.00 and asked them to return the excess of allowances they received from April to September 1994. 

3.  The petitioners filed a protest against the disallowance and contested the authority of the DBM circular over Mandaue's city ordinance. In this regard, an administrative order was issued specifying that DBM has the authority to provide guidelines on the specific rates of pay to local government officers, and provide criteria and guidelines for the grant of all allowances and additional forms of compensation to LGU employees. It also questioned the circular's effectivity and validity due to lack of publication.

4. COA dismissed the protest filed by the petitioners due to lack of merit. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

 IS LOCAL  BUDGET CIRCULAR  NO.  55  DATED  MARCH  15,  1994  ISSUED  BY  THE  DEPARTMENT OF  BUDGET AND  MANAGEMENT VALID  AND  ENFORCEABLE  CONSIDERING  THAT  IT  WAS NOT DULY  PUBLISHED  IN  ACCORDANCE  WITH  LAW?

RULING:

No, it is invalid and unenforceable. It was held in Tañada Vs. Tuvera that publication is an absolute necessity before a law can be effective to  inform  the public  of  the  contents  of  the law  or  rules  and  regulations  before their  rights  and  interests  are  affected  by  the same. In the present case, LBC55 expressly provided that it shall take effect immediately, eventhough there was no provision re publication. Thus, the LBC is considered null and void. The petition was granted and the assailed decision and resolution of COA  are set aside.