129. DBM v.

Leones
Mar. 18, 2010
Carpio, J.
Digest by Gabe
Topic and Provisions:
Short Version:
Leones was Municipal Treasurer of Bacnotan; she was reassigned to the
office of provincial treasurer upon filing of administrative cases against her.
The DBM refused to give her RATA for the period of her reassignment.
The SC ruled that Leones was entitled to RATA. The budget of Bacnotan was
governed by the budget ordinance passed by the Sangguniang Bayan, in
accordance with the principle of autonomy of LGUs.
Facts:
Olivia D. Leones was the Municipal Treasurer of Bacnotan, La Union. She
was then reassigned to the office of the Provincial Treasurer, pending the
resolution of administrative cases filed against her. As municipal treasurer,
she received representation and transportation allowance (RATA) on top of
her salary, but when she was reassigned, she no longer received RATA.
Her attempts at administrative relief having proven unsuccessful,
Leones filed a suit for mandamus with the RTC of San Fernando, La Union,
against the DBm to compel the payment of RATA. The RTC dismissed. On
certiorari to the CA, the decision was reversed.
Hence this petition for review.
Petitioner DBM: Does not want to pay RATA
1. RATA is not part of the salary and does not attach to the position, but
is paid on the basis of actual performance of functions.
2. The General Appropriations Acts from 1996-2005, except 1999,
uniformly provided that RATA would be granted for officials while in
the actual performance of their respective functions.
3. National Compensation Circular 67 also provides that RATA would not
be allowed to officials on full-time detail with another organizational

unit of the same agency, except when their duties and responsibilities
on detail are comparable with those of their regular positions.
4. Even granting that local budget ordinances apply, still they should be
subject to the conditions of the GAA.
Respondent Olivia Leones: wants RATA to be paid.
1. RATA, as an allowance, is not only payable when functions are actually
performed. Under the Compensation and Position Classification act
(RA 6758), all forms of allowances were integrated in the salaries.
Thus, as part of the standardized salary, Leones should still receive
RATA.
2. The GAAs do not apple to LGUS, whose appropriations are governed
by the Sangguniang Bayans through municipal ordinances, which do
not contain any provisos as to the performance of actual functions.
3. The budget circulars are entitled Representation and Transportation
Allowances of National Government Officials and Employees. Thus
local officials are not covered.
4. The DBM cant impose restrictions on LGUs as to the budgetary laws,
as that would derogate the autonomy of local governments.
Issue:
WON Leones was still entitled to receive RATA after her reassignment. (Yes)
Ratio:
RATA is an allowance distinct from salary. It belongs to a basket of
allowances to defray expenses deemed unavoidable in the discharge of
office, unlike salary, which is paid for services rendered. Hence, it is only
paid to officials, who, by the nature of their office, incur representation and
transportation expenses.
That being said, RATA is not necessarily only paid to RATA-entitled
officers who actually discharge the functions of their offices. While
allowances were integrated with the salary under RA 6758, nonperformance of duties may result from compliance with orders devoid of the
employees volition, such as reassignment.
The denial of RATA must be grounded on a provision of law. Niether
the GAAs or the Circulars cited by the DBM apply to LGUs. Instead, what
applies are the municipal ordinances passed by the Sangguniang Bayan of

Bacnotan. Those budget ordinances do not contain a provision regarding

the actual performance of functions.
As to the argument that the conditions contained in the GAAs apply to
LGUs, this would go against the principle of autonomy of LGUs. Under that
principle, the DBM cannot impose restrictions on LGUs.
The circular only applies to national employees. Besides, Leones fell
under the exception therein. She was reassigned within the same agency, in
this case the Department of Finance. Unlike other offices which were
devolved to the LGU, the treasurer remained under the DOF. Thus, no
distinction exists in the functions of local treasurers except in the technical
supervision by the provincial treasurer over subordinate treasury offices.
Thus, the duties and functions Leones performed on detail were
comparable to her post as municipal treasurer. For an employee not to be
entitled to RATA under that provision, the functions attached to the new
office must be so alien to the functions pertaining to the former office as to
make the two offices absolutely unrelated or non-comparable.
Finally, it would be iniquitous not to give RATA to Leones for acceding
to her reassignment beyond her control.
Petition denied. CA affirmed.