COA v.

Province of Cebu
G.R. No. 141386. November 29, 2001
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2001/nov2001/141386.php

FACTS:
The governor of the province of Cebu, as chairman of the local school board, in
accordance with Sec. 98 of the LGC, appointed classroom teachers without any items in the
DECS plantilla to handle extension classes for students in public schools. When the COA of
Cebu Province audited the accounts, it found that salaries and personnel-related benefits of the
teachers appointed by the province for the extension classes were charged against the provincial
Special Education Fund (SEF). Also, charged to the SEF were the province’s college scholarship
grants.
So, COA issued a Notice of Suspension for Cebu Province as it claimed that the grant
and salaries should not be charged to the SEF. The governor, representing Cebu Province, then
filed a petition for declaratory relief. The trial court made a decision in favor of Cebu Province,
and declaring that COA’s audit findings were null and void.
COA now files a petition, claiming the items in question are not chargeable to the SEF of
the local government unit concerned, as it was not expressly mentioned under R.A. 5447. It was
contended that Sec. 100( c ) of the LGC repealed R.A. 5447.

Sec. 100(C) of the LGC:

(c) The annual school board budget shall give priority to the following:

(1) Construction, repair, and maintenance of school buildings and other facilities of
public elementary and secondary schools;

(2) Establishment and maintenance of extension classes where necessary; and

(3) Sports activities at the division, district, municipal, and barangay levels.

ISSUE:
WON the salaries and personnel-related benefits of public school teachers appointed by local
chief executives in connection with the establishment and maintenance of extension classes; as
well as the expenses for college scholarship grants, may be charged to the SEF of the local
government unit concerned.

HELD: The Decision is AFFIRMED with some modification.

 The legislature did intend for the SEF to account the compensation of teachers handling
extension classes. Under the doctrine of necessary implication, the allocation of the SEF for the
establishment and maintenance of extension classes logically implies the hiring of teachers who
should, as a matter of course be compensated for their services. It is known that all statutes, by
implication, contain all provisions necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to form
effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral
and subsidiary consequences as could also be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. Ex
necessitate legis. Therefore, the services and therefore the corresponding compensation of those
teachers are necessary and indispensable to the establishment and maintenance of extension
classes.
Regarding the scholarship grants, it should be noted that Sections 100 (c) and 272 of the
government Code substantially reproduced Section 1, of R.A. No. 5447. But, unlike payment of
salaries of teachers which falls within the ambit of multinational and maintenance of extension
classes and operation and maintenance of public schools, the granting of government scholarship
to poor but deserving students was omitted in Sections 100 (c) and 272 of the government Code.
Casus omissus pro omisso habendus est. A person, object, or thing omitted from an enumeration
during a statute must be held to possess been omitted intentionally. It is not for this Court to
provide such grant of scholarship where the legislature has omitted it. Therefore, scholarship
grants are not among those lawful expenditures enumerated in Sec. 100( c ) of the LGC.