Allocation of Fiscal Duties: Demarcating the Authority of the City Accountant vs Treasurer in Funds Certificat

The Supreme Court, in Altres v. Empleo (G.R. No. 180986, December 10, 2008), settled a recurring question in local government fiscal administration: which officer—the city accountant or the city treasurer—has the ministerial duty to certify the availability of funds for the payment of salaries of newly appointed local government employees? The ruling draws a clear line between certifying a budgetary allotment (the accountant's duty) and certifying funds for actual disbursement (the treasurer's duty). This distinction matters to local government officials, human resource officers, and employees whose appointments depend on such certifications.

The Case: Appointments Held Hostage by a Missing Certification

In 2004, the outgoing mayor of Iligan City issued appointments to numerous individuals for vacant career positions. Under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of 1998, an appointment to a local government unit must be accompanied by a certification from the city accountant that funds are available. The city accountant, however, refused to issue the certification, citing resolutions from the Sangguniang Panglungsod that sought to suspend action on appointments during the transition period.

Without the certification, the CSC disapproved the appointments. The appointees filed a petition for mandamus to compel the city accountant to issue the certification. The Regional Trial Court denied the petition, ruling that under Section 344 of the Local Government Code of 1991, it was the city treasurer—not the city accountant—who certifies the availability of funds.

The Issue: Which Provision Governs?

The sole issue was whether Section 474(b)(4) or Section 344 of the Local Government Code applies to the certification requirement under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40. The petitioners argued that Section 474(b)(4) governs, making it the city accountant's ministerial duty to certify. The trial court had applied Section 344, which involves the city treasurer.

The Ruling: Two Different Certifications, Two Different Officers

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring that Section 474(b)(4) of the Local Government Code applies to the certification required for appointments. The Court explained the critical distinction:

• Section 474(b)(4) requires the city accountant to "certify to the availability of budgetary allotment to which expenditures and obligations may be properly charged." This certification is made before any obligation arises—it confirms that the local government unit has an appropriation from which future salaries can be paid.
• Section 344 applies only to actual disbursements. It requires that "no money shall be disbursed unless the local budget officer certifies to the existence of appropriation. the local accountant has obligated said appropriation, and the local treasurer certifies to the availability of funds for the purpose." This provision governs the payment of obligations already incurred, such as salaries for services already rendered.

The Court emphasized that at the time the certification was needed, the appointees had not yet rendered any service, and their appointments were still pending CSC approval. There was no due and demandable obligation to pay. Therefore, the certification required was one of budgetary allotment—the city accountant's duty—not one of fund availability for disbursement, which would be the city treasurer's duty.

Practical Takeaways

• For local government officers: The city accountant certifies the availability of budgetary allotment before an obligation is incurred, such as when appointments are processed. The city treasurer certifies the availability of funds only when actual disbursement is made through vouchers.
• For appointing authorities: A certification from the city accountant under Section 474(b)(4) of the Local Government Code is the proper requirement for appointments submitted to the CSC. Reliance on Section 344 is misplaced at the appointment stage.
• For employees and appointees: If an appointment is disapproved solely for lack of a funds certification, the proper officer to compel is the city accountant, not the city treasurer.
• On procedural rules: The Court also clarified that a certification against forum shopping signed by only some petitioners may constitute substantial compliance under justifiable circumstances, though non-signing petitioners may be dropped as parties.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.