5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

1/18

Public Ofce not a Contract

ABANILLA vsCOA

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

2/18

Metropolitan Cebu WaterDistrict (MCWD), a local

water district was organizedas a government-ownedcorporation with original

charter Pursuant to P D 198(Provincial Water Utilities cto! 19"#)

$C%&

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

3/18

MCWD, t'roug' its oard o!

Directors, issued esolutionsgiving bene*ts and privileges(hospitalization privileges,

allowing the monetization ofleave credits to its personnel,Christmas bonus and longevit

allowance) one o! w'o+ is DulceM banilla, MCWD-s .eneralManager

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

4/18

/n !anuar ", "#$#, MCWD andMetropolitan Cebu Water District0+ploees Union, e3ecuted acollective bargainingagreement %CBA& providing !ort'e continuous grant to all itsregular ran' and (le

emploeeso! e3isting bene*ts,

suc' as cash advances,thirteenth month pa, mid-

ear bonus, Christmas bonus,

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

5/18

/n!anuar ", "##), t'eparties renewed t'eirC

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

6/18

n audit tea+ 'eaded b

ernardita % 4abines o! t'eCOA *egional O+ce No

II at Cebu Cit, one o!t'e 'erein respondents,conducted an audito! t'eaccounts andtransactions of .C/0

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

7/18

%'e *egional 0irector o! C/

egional /5ce 6o 7, sentMCWD several noticesdisallowing t'e a+ount

o! P1,1,1:8; representinghospitalization bene(ts,mid-ear bonus, "1thmonthpa, Christmas bonus andlongevit pa

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

8/18

Petitioner appealto respondent COA at3uezon Cit citing C/ Me+orandu+

Circular 6o ::

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

9/18

C/ deniedpetitioner-s appealciting t'is &C-s ruling in Davao City

Water District vs. Civil ServiceCommission t'at >a water districtis a corporation created pursuant

to a special law 5 60 No "#$, asa+ended, and as suc', its o+cersand emploees are covered b

the Civil 7ervice Law@

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

10/18

espondent C/ t'en 'eld t'atA

>%'ere is no Buestion t'at t'e CBA was

concluded after t'e decision in t'e 0avao case waspromulgated s !ar as t'e C is concerned t'ecritical moment is t'e date o! t'e promulgationitsel! An transaction (C) concluded after t'isdate in violation of e4isting laws and regulations

applicable to government entities is void and of noe8ect t con!erred no demandable right, it createdno enforceable obligation

3 3 3

P0M&0& C/6&D00D, t'e instant appeal 'asto be, as it is 'ereb, denied %'e disallowance in t'etotal a+ount o! P1,1,1:8; is 'ereb $$M0D

&/ /D00D@

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

11/18

Petitioner *led a +otion !orreconsideration but it was deniedC/ ruled t'at t'e compensationpac'age of .C/0 personnel+a no longer be t'e sub9ecto!a C $or t'e ter+s o!e+plo+ent o! t'ose personnelare covered, not b t'e aborCode, but b t'e Civil 7erviceLaw

5/19/2018 Abanilla vs Coa

12/18

1 W'et'er C/ was correctin disallowingt'e

hospitalization bene(ts,mid-ear bonus,"1thmonth pa,

Christmas bonus andlongevit pa:

I77;