JUDGE TOMAS C. LEYNES, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), HON. GREGORIA S. ONG, DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON AUDIT and HON. SALVACION DALISAY, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, respondents; G.R. No. 143596 December 11, 2003

TOPIC: Statutes as a whole. 

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole and not merely of a particular provision. (judge diaz, statcon book) 

A provision or section, which is unclear by itself, may be clarified by reading and construing it in relation to the whole statute. (Case) 

GIST:

Petitioner Judge Leynes receives his salary and RATA from SC's budget. Plus P944 additional allowance from the municipality of Naujan which eventually increased to P1600 by Resolution No. 101, Series of 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan. In February 1994, the provincial auditor sent a directive to stop giving P1600 allowance and refund the previously given allowances in line with the National Compensation Circular No. 67 dated January 1, 1992, of the Department of Budget and Management which states:

No one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than one source. 

And that Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan failed to comply with Section 3 of Local Budget Circular No. 53 dated September 1, 1993 which states that:

e. That similar allowances/additional compensation are not granted by the national government to the officials/employees assigned to the LGU.

RA 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, clearly provides that provincial, city and municipal governments may grant allowances to judges as long as their finances allow. Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53, by outrightly prohibiting LGUs from granting allowances to judges whenever such allowances are (1) also granted by the national government or (2) similar to the allowances granted by the national government, violates Section 447(a)(l)(xi) of the Local Government Code of 1991. As already stated, a circular must conform to the law it seeks to implement and should not modify or amend it. Section 447(a)(1)(xi) of the Local Government Code of 1991 imposes only one condition, that is, "when the finances of the municipal government allow." 

Moreover, by prohibiting LGUs from granting allowances similar to the allowances granted by the national government, Section 3 (e) of LBC No. 53 practically prohibits LGUs from granting allowances to judges and, in effect, totally nullifies their statutory power to do so. Being unduly restrictive therefore of the statutory power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges and being violative of their autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution, Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53 is hereby declared null and void.

RATIONALE:

It is elementary in statutory construction that an administrative circular cannot supersede, abrogate, modify or nullify a statute. A statute is superior to an administrative circular, thus the latter cannot repeal or amend it.

It is also an elementary principle in statutory construction that repeal of statutes by implication is not favored, unless it is manifest that the legislature so intended. The legislature is assumed to know the existing laws on the subject and cannot be presumed to have enacted inconsistent or conflicting statutes.

Generalia specialibus non derogant - a general law does not nullify a specific or special law. 

-----------------------------

FACTS:

1. Petitioner Judge Tomas C. Leynes... was formerly assigned to the Municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro as the sole presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court... thereof.

2. As such, his salary and representation and transportation allowance (RATA) were drawn from the budget of the Supreme Court. Petitioner received a monthly allowance of P944 from the local funds[2] of the Municipality of Naujan starting 1984.

3. On March 15, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan, through Resolution No. 057, sought the opinion of the Provincial Auditor and the Provincial Budget Officer regarding any budgetary limitation on the grant of a monthly allowance by the municipality to petitioner judge.

4. The Sangguniang Bayan unanimously approved Resolution No. 101 increasing petitioner judge's monthly allowance from P944 to P1,600 (an increase of P656) starting May 1993.

5. In 1994, the Municipal Government of Naujan again provided for petitioner judge's P1,600 monthly allowance in its annual budget which was again approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Office of Provincial Budget and Management of Oriental Mindoro.[5]

6. On February 17, 1994, Provincial Auditor Salvacion M. Dalisay sent a letter to the Municipal Mayor and the Sangguniang  Bayan  of Naujan directing them to stop the payment of the P1,600 monthly allowance or RATA to petitioner judge and to require the immediate refund of the amounts previously paid to the latter.

7. She opined that the Municipality of Naujan could not grant RATA to petitioner judge in addition to the RATA the latter was already receiving from the Supreme Court.  Her directive was based on the following:

Section 36, RA No. 7645, General Appropriations Act of 1993

National Compensation Circular No. 67 dated January 1, 1992, of the Department of Budget and Management

Funding Source:

No one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than one source

8. Petitioner judge appealed to COA who, however, upheld the opinion of Provincial Auditor Dalisay and who added that Resolution No. 101, Series of 1993 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan failed to comply with Section 3 of Local Budget Circular No. 53 dated September 1, 1993 outlining the conditions for the grant of allowances to judges and other national officials or employees by the local government units (LGUs). Section 3 of the said budget circular provides that Petitioner judge appealed the unfavorable resolution of the Regional Director to the Commission on Audit. 

9. In the meantime, a disallowance of the payment of the P1,600 monthly allowance to petitioner was issued.

ISSUE:

W/N the Municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro can validly provide RATA to its Municipal judge in addition to that provided by the Supreme Court.

RULING:

YES. Municipality of Naujan can validly provide an additional RATA to Judge Leynes aside from that given by the Supreme Court.

R.A.  7160 - Local Government Code ( LGC of 1991) is a special law specifically intended to affect and regulate local government units in consonance with constitutionally vested autonomy while R.A. 7645 - General Appropriations Act (GAA of 1993)  is a general law that outlines the share in the national fund of all branches in the national government. Therefore, R.A. 7645 - GAA could not have, by mere implication, repealed R.A. 7160 - LGC. R.A. 7160. Rather, RA 7160 should be taken as the exception to RA 7645 in the absence of circumstances warranting a contrary conclusion

COA's contention that  National Compensation Circular No. 67 issued by DBM a  Department of Budget and Management in consonance with GAA prohibits the LGU's from giving additional allowanced is based of the provision: "No one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than one source." However, since GAA is of national coverage, the source can be construed to be another national agency. 

Also, local autonomy is vested by the Constitution. 

Prohibiting LGUs from granting allowances similar to the allowances granted by the national government, Section 3 (e) of LBC No. 53 practically prohibits LGUs from granting allowances to judges and, in effect, totally nullifies their statutory power to do so. Being unduly restrictive therefore of the statutory power of LGUs to grant allowances to judges and being violative of their autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution, Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53 is hereby declared null and void.

SC ruling:  The petition is GRANTED.  The assailed decision dated September 14, 1999 of the Commission of Audit is hereby SET ASIDE and Section 3, paragraph (e) of LBC No. 53 is hereby declared NULL and VOID.

Lecture:

NCC - for elected officials, judge leynes not one

- differences 

- LGC and NCC 67 can be applied at the same time.

- as long as there is a way where both can be applied harmoniously

- by reviewing the statutes as a whole, NCC was only applicable to elected officials

2 doctrines were used:

1. harmonious application of LGC and DBM Ncc no. 67 (only to elected officials)

2. when we construe law, we should consider the law as a whole

- before a law is declared null and void, we should first find a harmonious application

-----------------------------

ADDITIONAL INFO:

GAAs all essentially provide that 

(1) the RATA of national officials shall be payable from the budgets of their respective national agencies and 

(2) those officials on detail with other national agencies shall be paid their RATA only from the budget of their parent national agency: