Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City

CRISTINA B. BALITON, CRISTY

M. BANGUG, DARWIN T.
GALLETA, FELY ROSE B.
MANAOIS, EUNICE A. PALOMO,
ALLIVER B. SAPITULA, NOEMI
M. BOADO, REMALYN Q.
CASEM, MARY ANN C. CORPUZ,
ATTY. BENJAMIN P. SAPITULA,
PAULITO C. NISPEROS,
RAJEINDER JAIN D. LUMILAN Case No. _______________
and LEONILA A. CARREON,
Petitioners,

- versus -

HON. MICHAEL R. BACANI, in

his capacity as COA REGIONAL
DIRECTOR,
Respondents.
x---------------------------x

ATTY. BENJAMIN P. SAPITULA,

HONORIO C. BUCCAT,
ADRIANNO T. ESGUERRA, GIL
F. DELA VEGA, PAULITO C.
NISPEROS, JUNIFER REY E.
TABAFUNDA, ELSIE M. PACHO,
AURORA E. CASUGA, CYNTHIA
C. SAMPAGA, RAJEINDER JAIN
D. LUMILAN and LEONILA A.
Case No. _______________
CARREON,
Petitioners,

- versus -

HON. MICHAEL R. BACANI, in

his capacity as COA REGIONAL
DIRECTOR,
Respondents.
x---------------------------x

--
Petition for Review
Page 1 of 14
  
PETITION FOR REVIEW


PETITIONERS unto this Honorable Office respectfully aver:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a petition for review of the Decision with number 2019-100 of
Hon. MICHAEL R. BACANI, Regional Director of the Regional Office 1 of
the Honorable Commission. The dispositive portion of RO I Decision No.
2019-100 dated June 14, 2019 reads:

“WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the herein appeal of

CRISTINA B. BALITON ET AL, JR., ET AL, all of Don Mariano
Marcos Memorial State University, Mid-La Union Campus
(DMMMSU-MLUC) City of San Fernando, La Union is hereby
DENIED. Accordingly, Notice of Disallowance (ND) Nos. 18-003-
101-(16 & 17) and 18-004-101-(16 & 17), both dated February 15,
2018 on the payment of full salaries and Personnel Economic Relief
Allowances (PERA) to faculty members and staff of DMMMSU-
MLUC on study leave in the amount of P2,483,449.30, are hereby
AFFIRMED.”

Copy of the aforementioned Decision is hereto attached as Annex “A” for

reference and to form part of this petition.

Both NDs prohibited the payment of full salaries and Personnel

Economic Relief Allowances (PERA) to faculty members and staff of
DMMMSU-MLUC on study leave. The NDs were last April 6, 2018.
Aggrieved by the NDs, petitioners appealed these disallowances. The
appeal was received by Regional Office No. I of the Honorable
Commission last August 31, 2018. It tolled the running of the prescriptive
period for appeal pursuant to Section 4 of Rule V of the 2009 Revised Rules
of Procedure of the Commission on Audit. Subsequently thereafter, the
Regional Director, respondent in this case, denied the appeal of petitioners
in his aforementioned decision. Said decision was received by petitioners
last June 24, 2019.

The petitioners have a period of six (6) months to appeal the said
disallowance before it becomes final and executory. Hence, the submission
of this petition is within the period provided for by said rule.

--
Petition for Review
Page 2 of 14
 PARTIES
Petitioners are and were employees of Don Mariano Marcos
Memorial State University (DMMMSU).

ATTY. BENJAMIN P. SAPITULA was the University President.

HONORIO C. BUCCAT is the Vice-President for Academic Affairs and
the Chairman of the University Scholarship Committee. ADRIANNO T.
ESGUERRA was the Vice-President for Research and Extension and a
member of the University Scholarship Committee. GIL F. DELA VEGA is
the Vice-President for Planning and a member of the University
Scholarship Committee. Petitioner JUNIFER REY E. TABAFUNDA was
then the Faculty Regent of DMMMSU and was a member of the University
Scholarship Committee. Petitioner ELSIE M. PACHO is the Director for
Instruction and a member of the University Scholarship Committee.
Petitioner AURORA E. CASUGA was the University Director for Finance
and was a member of the University Scholarship Committee. Petitioner
CYNTHIA C. SAMPAGA is University Human Resource and
Management Officer and a member of the University Scholarship
Committee. The aforementioned appellants are the petitioners in the
disallowance with ND No. 18-004-101-(16 & 17) alone. They can be served
with notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable Office at
through DMMMSU located at Sapilang, Bacnotan, La Union.

PAULITO C. NISPEROS was then the Chancellor of DMMMSU-

MLUC and was a member of the University Scholarship Committee. He is
now the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies. RAJEINDER JAIN D.
LUMILIAN and LEONILA A. CARREON are the Finance Head and the
Internal Auditor (OIC) of DMMMSU-MLUC, respectively. They are
petitioners in ND Nos. 18-003-101-(16 & 17) and 18-004-101-(16 & 17). They
can be served with notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable
Office at their place of employment located at Catbangen, San Fernando
City, La Union.

CRISTINA B. BALITON, CRISTY M. BANGUG, DARWIN T.

GALLETA, FELY ROSE B. MANAOIS, EUNICE A. PALOMO, ALLIVER
B. SAPITULA, NOEMI M. BOADO, REMALYN Q. CASEM, and MARY
ANN C. CORPUZ, on the other hand, are all faculty members of
DMMMSU-MLUC who are all CHEd scholarship grantees and are
petitioners in ND No. 18-003-101-(16 & 17) alone. They can be served with
notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable Office at their place of
employment located at Catbangen, San Fernando City, La Union.

Respondent MICHAEL R. BACANI, on the other hand, is the

Regional Director of the Regional Office of the Honorable Commission

--
Petition for Review
Page 3 of 14
who issued the herein assailed decision. His principal office address is
situated at Government Center, Sevilla, San Fernando City, La Union.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Petitioners are adopting the same statement of facts as narrated in
their appeal filed with the Respondent, to wit:

The school period 2016-2017 marks the beginning of the

implementation of the K to 12 program of the Department of
Education. This is the era where there were no or if there are, only a
few enrolment was registered by institutions of higher learning like
DMMMSU. In order to cut down the situation where there will be
more faculty members and less students admitted during the
commencement of the K to 12 program, the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) strengthened its scholarship programs namely the
Faculty Development Program and implemented a second phase of it
known as the Faculty Development Program-Phase II (FDP-II).

According to CHED, the new K to 12 curriculum in basic

education will inevitably impact higher education in the Philippines
on two important fronts: the curriculum, and the people working in
the higher education sector.1 K to 12 impacts those working in the
higher education sector: as senior high school is rolled out nationwide
this 2016, students go through two more years of high school instead
of going straight to college, resulting in low enrolment in colleges and
universities nationwide.2 On manpower, CHED estimated
displacement stands at 25,000 people. These numbers do not include
employees from state universities and colleges (SUCs), because the
SUC budgets for the transition years are enough to cover all the
people who would otherwise be displaced, nor does it include
permanent workers from local universities and colleges (LUCs),
because these employees cannot be retrenched during the transition
period.3 The scenario, however in SUCs and LUCs, is that faculty
members will be reporting for work, receiving their salary but doing
nothing. To lessen the impact of this, CHED, for its part, has
designed the following development packages for faculty and staff who
will experience no or lower workload during the transition, with the
view of not only curbing the adverse effects of the transition but also,
and more importantly, upgrading higher education in the country.
The following are the packages:
1
About the K to 12 Transition, https://chedk12.wordpress.com/about-kto12/ retrieved on July 22, 2018.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
--
Petition for Review
Page 4 of 14
 1. Scholarships for Graduate Studies and Professional
Advancement – CHED will give a total of 15,000
scholarships to higher education personnel: for 8,000 to
complete master’s degrees and another 7,000 to finish
doctorate degrees;

2. Development Grants for Faculty and Staff – Those

who may not wish to go on full-time study may still
avail of grants that will allow them to retool, engage in
research, community service, industry immersion, and
other programs throughout the transition period; and

3. Innovation Grants for Institutions – Higher

education institutions may likewise apply for innovation
grants to fund the upgrading of their programs through:
(1) international linkages, (2) linkages with industry, (3)
research, or (4) the development of priority, niche, or
endangered programs.4

Several faculty members of DMMMSU from the different

campuses including the Mid-La Union Campus took advantage of
this and applied for the said program. They sought endorsement and
approval from the concerned authorities of DMMMSU. Since it is the
vision of DMMMSU to be a world-class university, it even
encouraged its faculty members to avail of these scholarship
programs. With the attainment of this vision in mind, Atty.
Benjamin P. Sapitula, the University President, favorably approved
their applications, which was duly indorsed by the University
Scholarship Committee. The scholarships granted to these faculty
members will not only benefit them but more so the University and
its clientele as well. After earning their post graduate degrees in their
respective fields, they will become more competent and qualified to
further the purpose of DMMMSU in providing quality instruction,
research and extension to its clientele. They will be DMMMSU’s
living testament to the attainment of its vision as a world-class
university.

Four (4) faculty members of the College of Information

Technology of the Mid-La Union Campus of DMMMSU applied for
the Faculty Development Program of CHED and they were admitted
while nine (9) others were approved for the K to 12 scholarship
program. These faculty members went on study leave to pursue the
scholarship program they applied and was approved for. During the
period of their study leave, DMMMSU paid their salaries in
4
Ibid.
--
Petition for Review
Page 5 of 14
 accordance with existing policies of the University as well as in
compliance with the scholarship contract of each faculty member for
which the University is also a party to.

On January 2017, state auditors issued an Audit Observation

Memorandum (AOM) with number No. 2017-001 dated January 19,
2017 addressed to DR. PAULITO C. NISPEROS, DMMMSU-
MLUC Chancellor, regarding the overlapping of scholarships enjoyed
by appellant faculty members in ND No. 18-003-101-(16 & 17). It
required Chancellor Nisperos to comment on the said AOM within 15
days from receipt of said AOM. Copy of the AOM with number
2017-001 dated January 19, 2017 is hereto attached as Annex “B” for
reference and to form part of this appeal memorandum. The AOM
was received by DMMMSU-MLUC on January 23, 2018 to which
Chancellor Nisperos responded instantaneously. The letter dated
February 9, 2017 was addressed to State Auditor MARLINO P.
ESTACIO. Chancellor Nisperos argued in his letter that the faculty
members, subject of said AOM, did not enjoy more than one
scholarship. Faculty members concerned were only bound by the
CHEd scholarship which they applied for and are not considered
scholars of DMMMSU. Copy of the this letter dated February 9, 2017
in response to AOM No. 2017-001 is hereto attached as Annex “C”
for reference and to form part of this appeal memorandum. After
which, state auditors have asked for several documents such as
scholarship contracts regarding the scholarship granted by CHEd to
DMMMSU-MLUC faculty members. Chancellor Nisperos humbly
heeded the request.

On April 6, 2018, state auditors issued Notice of

Disallowances with numbers 18-003-101-(16 & 17) and 18-004-101-
(16 & 17) both dated February 15, 2018. Said notices were received
by DMMMSU on April 6, 2018. The two notices of disallowance
basically are the same except for the amount and concerned faculty
members involved. State auditors reasoned out in their notices that
the identified faculty members who are CHED scholarship grantees
failed to qualify for the grant of study leave in accordance with the
DMMMSU Faculty Manual; hence, they disallowed the payment of
their salaries for the period where their study leave was in effect. The
DMMMSU administration felt aggrieved by these disallowances,
hence, this appeal.

Last June 24, 2019, petitioners received the decision of their appeal.
Respondent denied their appeal, hence, this Petition for Review.

--
Petition for Review
Page 6 of 14
 ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS CORRECT IN AFFIRMING THE
NOTICES OF DISALLOWANCE AGAINST PETITIONERS.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

The petitioners assert that respondent was mistaken in affirming
the Notices of Disallowance against petitioners.

A clear reading of the assailed Decision, even the respondent agreed

that there indeed a conflict between existing policies of DMMSU with
respect to the grant of study leave to its employees – faculty members and
non-teaching personnel. Respondent, however, chose to uphold the
disallowances subject matter of these cases reasoning that the policy of the
University which the state auditors have relied upon is the latter policy
hence, it shall prevail. The text reads:

“Upon review of the above stated provisions of the DMMMSU

Faculty Manual, there seems to be an apparent conflict on when
an employee may avail of study leave. Where one statute deals
with the subject in general terms and other deals with the same
subject in a more detailed way, the two shall be harmonized if
possible but if there be conflict that latter will prevail. The
alleged conflicting sections could be interpreted in the light of
the principle of statutory construction that when a general and
a particular provision are inconsistent the latter is paramount to
the former.”

We agree in the reliance of the aforementioned rule of statutory

construction by the respondent but respectfully offers our non-conformity
in the finding that the policy relied upon by the state auditors is the specific
or particular provision, hence, it should yield to the other.

The two policies of DMMMSU as far as the above decision is

referring to was clearly discussed in the appeal of the petitioners. It is
undisputed that even respondent agrees to their existence and their
contradicting state. The discussion of the questioned policies as lifted in the
appeal of are:

The DMMMSU
Policies as
encapsulated in the
--
Petition for Review
Page 7 of 14
DMMMSU Faculty
Manual.

Since the inception of DMMMSU, for more than 30 years

now, the University has and is adopting and implementing the
provision of the Faculty and Staff Development Program
incorporated in its Faculty Manual. The specific provision of
such is quoted as:

“Chapter VII, Sec. IV, pages 68-59

To avail of the University Faculty and Staff

Development Program, a faculty or staff should:

1. Be a holder of a plantilla position;

2. Have rendered at least two (2) years continuous
service in the University;

- xxx -”

For purposes of discussion, the above quoted provision of the

DMMMSU Faculty Manual would be referred to as THE
POLICY. In terms of salary, THE POLICY likewise provides:

“Chapter VII. Sec. VIII Par 1

The full scholar shall be entitled to the following:

1.1 Payment of salaries and benefits subject to

accounting rules and regulations.

xxx -”

Chapter IX entitled “Employment Policies, Procedures

and Practices” of the DMMMSU Faculty Manual, specifically
Sec. VI, par. I thereof, provides:

“Chapter IX Employment Policies, Procedures and

Practices, Sec. VI, par. I – Study Leave

The leave not exceeding one school year after seven years
of continuous service subject to the approval of the
director of the government board concerned. During the
period of such leave the teacher shall be entitled to at
least 60% of his monthly salary. However, no teacher
shall be allowed to go more than one year of study leave
--
Petition for Review
Page 8 of 14
 unless he needs additional semester to finish his thesis for
graduate study in education or other allied courses,
provided, he shall not be allowed to receive any
compensation.”

For purposes of discussion, the above quoted provision of the

DMMMSU Faculty Manual would be referred to as the OTHER
POLICY.

For purposes of this petition, the same reference to these conflicting

policies will be made as stated and lifted in the appeal of petitioners.

A general statute is one which embraces a class of subjects or places

and does not omit any subject or place naturally belonging to such class. A
special statute, as the term is generally understood, is one which relates to
particular persons or things of a class or to a particular portion or section of
the state only.5 Where there are two acts, one of which is special and
particular and the other general which, if standing alone, would include
the same matter and thus conflict with the special act, the special law must
prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than that of a
general statute and must not be taken as intended to affect the more
particular and specific provisions of the earlier act, unless it is absolutely
necessary so to construe it in order to give its words any meaning at all. 6 It
is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a
general law — regardless of their dates of passage — and the special is to
be considered as remaining an exception to the general. 7 Even the
respondent has made reliance on this rule. (Emphasis supplied)

It is the contention of the petitioners that the OTHER POLICY is a

general provision of the DMMMSU Faculty Manual while THE POLICY is
a special or specific provision. The OTHER POLICY is a general provision
because it encapsulates all kinds of undertaking relative to the pursuit of
knowledge and or skill by personnel. An employee of DMMMSU may opt
to have a study leave to pursue advances in his field or in another field
totally different from his profession or the purpose of his employment with
DMMMSU. It can be seen as more for personal reasons rather than being
beneficial to DMMMSU. One can pursue skills training or vocational
course or even higher or post-graduate studies not in any way related to
his work. It is also important to note in this case of endeavour, the
employee shoulders all the necessary expenses for the said venture. When
the personnel do so, then the OTHER POLICY applies.

5
Agpalo, Statutory Construction, second edition (1990), p. 197.
6
Id. at 197-198.
7
Lopez, Jr. vs. CSC, G.R. No. 87119, April 16, 1991.
--
Petition for Review
Page 9 of 14
 THE POLICY, on the other hand, is more specific because that grant
of the same is for a particular purpose that is for the development of the
University’s faculty members and staff. In this endeavour, DMMMSU
benefits from the pursuit of the faculty member or staff of, a more often,
higher or advance studies. It is advantageous to DMMMSU because the
faculty members or staffs concerned become more competent and capable
to perform their assigned task, thus, contributing immensely to the
attainment of the University’s mission and vision. The faculty member or
staff when it goes on study leaves under this provision of the Faculty
Manual, it does so in furtherance of a scholarship contract with DMMMSU
or any other government funding agency. It has a return of service
agreement because DMMMSU or the concerned government funding
agency will subsidize the pursuit for higher or advanced learning. This is
not so for study leave not within the coverage of the Faculty and Staff
Development Program of the University.

With these noted comparison between THE POLICY and the OTHER
POLICY, it cannot be therefore denied that THE POLICY is a special
provision which will prevail over the general one. Applying the rule on the
matter, THE POLICY must prevail since it demonstrates the policy
maker’s intent more clearly than that of the general application of the
OTHER POLICY.

At this point, it is now worthy to emphasize that the concerned

faculty members, petitioners in these cases, went on study leave to pursue
higher or advance studies under the auspices of the Faculty Development
Program of the University. Their studies were covered by a scholarship
contract with CHED, a government funding agency in the field of higher
education. DMMMSU is part of said contract as it is mandated in the said
contract that it will pay the salaries and other benefits of the faculty
member concerned during the duration of the study leave. Copy of the
Endorsement, Scholarship Contract and Certification of the faculty
members who availed of the Faculty Development Program of the
University and went on study leave are hereto attached as Annex “B” and
series for reference and to make them part of this appeal memorandum. A
scrutiny of these documents would reveal that indeed their study leave is
under the Faculty Development Program of the University of the
University; hence, THE POLICY would apply to them and NOT the
OTHER POLICY.

Respondent is therefore mistaken when it said that the policy relied

upon by state auditors in the issuance of the assailed notices of
disallowance is the specific or particular provision of the DMMMSU
Faculty Manual when it should be the other way around.

--
Petition for Review
Page 10 of 14
 To further petitioners’ cause and justify their actions, a clear and
succinct reasoning were discussed in their appeal memorandum. These
were not given any scant consideration by respondent as he failed to
discuss it in the questioned decision. By way of incorporation and reference
the discussions in the appeal memorandum of petitioners are hereby made
part of this petition to form part of their arguments. Copy of the appeal
memorandum is hereto attached as Annex “C” to form part of this petition.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, with the above articulated arguments, it is
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office to SET ASIDE the ROI I
Decision No. 2019-100 dated June 14, 2019 and absolve petitioners from any
liability arising from the questioned disallowances.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ______________ at San Fernando

City, La Union, Philippines.

CRISTINA B. BALANON CRISTY M. BANGUG

Apellant Apellant

DARWIN T. GALLETA FELY ROSE B. MANAOIS

Apellant Apellant

EUNICE A. PALOMO ALLIVER B. SAPITULA

Apellant Apellant

NOEMI M. BOADO REMALYN Q. CASEM

Apellant Apellant

MARY ANN C. CORPUZ

Apellant

RAJEINDER JAIN D. LUMILAN LEONILA A. CARREON

Apellant Apellant

PAULITO C. NISPEROS
Apellant

--
Petition for Review
Page 11 of 14
 HONORIO C. BUCCAT ADRIANNO T. ESGUERRA
Apellant Apellant

GIL F. DELA VEGA JUNIFER REY E. TABAFUNDA

Apellant Apellant

ELSIE M. PACHO AURORA E. CASUGA

Apellant Apellant

CYNTHIA C. SAMPAGA
Apellant

ATTY. BENJAMIN P. SAPITULA

Apellant

Republic of the Philippines)

Province of La Union ) S.S
City of San Fernando )

--
Petition for Review
Page 12 of 14
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
We, ATTY. BENJAMIN P. SAPITULA, HONORIO C. BUCCAT,
ADRIANNO T. ESGUERRA, GIL F. DELA VEGA, JUNIFER REY E.
TABAFUNDA, ELSIE M. PACHO, AURORA E. CASUGA, CYNTHIA C.
SAMPAGA, all of legal age, Filipinos, and with principal office address at
DMMMSU, Brgy. Sapilang, Bacnotan, La Union, and we, PAULITO C.
NISPEROS, RAJEINDER JAIN D. LUMILAN, LEONILA A. CARREON,
CRISTINA B. BALITON, CRISTY M. BANGUG, DARWIN T.
GALLETA, FELY ROSE B. MANAOIS, EUNICE A. PALOMO, ALLIVER
B. SAPITULA, NOEMI M. BOADO, REMALYN Q. CASEM, and MARY
ANN C. CORPUZ, all of legal age, Filipinos, and with principal office
address at DMMMSU Mid-La Union Campus, Brgy. Catbangen, San
Fernando City, La Union, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law, do hereby depose and state that:

1. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing Appeal

Memorandum, the contents of which are supplied by us and are all
true and correct upon our personal knowledge, information and
belief, the allegations therein are true and correct and were based on
authentic documents at hand;

2. That we further certify that: (a) we have not theretofore commenced

any other action or proceeding or filed any claim involving the same
issues or matter in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and,
to the best of our knowledge, no such action or proceeding is
pending therein; (c) if we should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency, we undertake to report such fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court or agency wherein the original pleading and
sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set my hand this

_________________ in San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines.

CRISTINA B. BALANON CRISTY M. BANGUG

Affiant Affiant

DARWIN T. GALLETA FELY ROSE B. MANAOIS

Affiant Affiant

EUNICE A. PALOMO ALLIVER B. SAPITULA

Affiant Affiant

--
Petition for Review
Page 13 of 14
 NOEMI M. BOADO REMALYN Q. CASEM
Affiant Affiant

MARY ANN C. CORPUZ

Affiant

RAJEINDER JAIN D. LUMILAN LEONILA A. CARREON

Affiant Affiant

PAULITO C. NISPEROS
Affiant

HONORIO C. BUCCAT ADRIANNO T. ESGUERRA

Affiant Affiant

GIL F. DELA VEGA JUNIFER REY E. TABAFUNDA

Affiant Affiant

ELSIE M. PACHO AURORA E. CASUGA

Affiant Affiant

CYNTHIA C. SAMPAGA
Affiant

ATTY. BENJAMIN P. SAPITULA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before this _________________ at

San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines.

Copy furnished

HON. MICHAEL R. BACANI

Regional Director, COA Regional Office No. I
Government Center, Sevilla
San Fernando City, La Union

--
Petition for Review
Page 14 of 14