DILG-CAR OPINION NO.

05-93
Series of 2005

25 January 2005

PD JONATHAN PAUL M. LEUSEN, JR.

DILG Provincial Office
Bangued, Abra

Dear Sir:

This is in connection with your letter-query of 20 January 2005 regarding the benefits of the
Punong Barangay and the Acting Punong Barangay while the former is on official leave of
absence.

As per your letter, it appears that Punong Barangay Vivencio Dumaslan of Tangbao, San Isidro,
Abra went on leave for six months effective January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005, hence, the
following issues as hereunder rephrased, viz:

1. Is the Punong Barangay entitled to receive the honorarium due him as such
during his leave of absence?

2. By virtue of succession, is the Acting Punong Barangay entitled to receive the

honorarium equivalent of that of the Punong Barangay? and

3. What specific provision/ruling of the Code and other DBM/CSC Circular apply
in the instant case?

On the first issue, our answer is IT DEPENDS. If Hon. Dumaslan has available leave credits then
he is entitled to his honorarium. Otherwise, he is considered on leave without pay.

One may argue that since Barangay Officials are compensated through honoraria, they should
not be entitled to their honoraria once they are on leave. This argument is based on the
premise that honoraria, as defined under the dictionary, are payments for ACTUAL service
rendered. However, it should be borne in mind that ‘honoraria’ of the barangay officials are not
honoraria per se but actually their monthly compensation as barangay officials. This
interpretation is derived from the Local Government Code of 1991, particularly under Section
393 thereof in correlation with Section 81.

It bears to stress that Section 393 authorized barangay officials to receive honoraria, allowances
and such other emoluments but in no case shall it be less than One Thousand Pesos
(P1,000.00) per month for the Punong Barangay and Six Hundred Pesos (P600.00) per month
for the Sangguniang Barangay members, barangay treasurer and barangay secretary. It is very
clear that the law did not limit the monthly compensation of barangay officials to honoraria
only. And considering the manner of their payment, which is monthly and not per actual service
rendered, the minimum compensation of P1,000.00 and P600.00 cannot really be treated as
honoraria as defined. Otherwise, if the law really refers to the minimum compensation as
honoraria only, then it should have stated that the same would be paid per actual service
rendered and not on a monthly basis.

On the other hand, Section 81 grants leave privileges to elective local officials same leave
privileges as those enjoyed by appointive local officials, including the cumulation and
commutation thereof. It is undeniable that the Punong Barangay and the members of the
Sangguniang Barangay are elective local officials. Hence, they should be entitled to leave
privileges as clearly enunciated under the law. And since the cumulation and commutation is
the same as those of appointive local officials, these barangay officials should still be entitled to
their monthly compensation so long as they have earned leave credits.
Indeed, the very essence of leave privileges is to the effect that anyone who is on official leave
of absence is entitled to receive his benefits so long as he has earned leave credits. To say
otherwise or to say that a barangay elective official who has earned leave credits cannot claim
his ‘honoraria’ during his official leave of absence is tantamount to depriving him of such leave
privileges clearly granted by law.

Our interpretation of the term honoraria is definitely in accordance with the established rule in
statutory construction that laws should not be interpreted by the letter that killeth but by the
spirit that giveth life. In this instance, both provisions should be reconciled to give them force
and effect and to avoid the situation wherein one provision is given force while the other none.

As for the second issue, we answer in the NEGATIVE. As the highest ranked member of the
Sangguniang Barangay, he is mandated by law to assume the Office of the Punong Barangay in
a temporary capacity whenever temporary vacancy occurs in said office (Sec. 46, LGC). Said
assumption to office is automatic and need no further act, except of course, the taking of oath
of office. And such assumption does not necessarily mean entitlement by the concerned official
to the remuneration attached to the assumed office or position, otherwise, an absurd situation
may arise wherein the barangay shall be paying the compensation of two Punong Barangays.

And with respect to the third issue, those provisions of the law cited above are the ones
applicable in the instant case. If ever there are circulars, memoranda or other issuances issued
by the DBM or the CSC or any other government agency providing for contrary provision, these
are definitely illegal and therefore without force and effect. It is a settled rule that all circulars,
regulations, order or other issuances of issued by any agency under the executive branch of the
government should be in conformity with existing laws of the country, otherwise the same are
void for being contrary to law.

We hope to have enlightened you on the matter at hand. Our opinion, however, is without
prejudice to any contrary opinion by higher authorities or competent tribunal.

May we add that subsequent queries be addressed to the Regional Director, and not to the
undersigned, in proper observance of existing protocol of our Office.

Warm regards.

Very truly yours,

TOMAS A. KIWANG, JR
Attorney IV

/opinion 05-93