crb

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
A. Francisco Gold Condominium II
EDSA Cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman
Quezon City

LtrqAL5ERVXCE
DILG Legal Opinion No. 02s.2OL2

MS. LOUISE ANNE P. TRINIDAD

|JAN 11?'01?
Obando, Bulacan
louisetrinidad@yahoo.com

Dear Ms. Trinidad.

This pertains to your e-mail query on whether you may still demand for the payment
of your honoraria for services rendered as a Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman for the month
of November, 2010, which is being withheld by your Punong Barangay allegedly because you
filed an administrative case against him before the Office of the Ombudsman.

In reply thereto, please be informed that this Department already had the occasion to
clarify the issue regarding the withholding of honoraria of barangay elective officials in DILG
Legaf Opinion No. 16, s. 2OO7, a copy of which is hereto attached for your reference.

In the said opinion, we clarified that a Sangguniang Barangay Member may be legally
deprived of his honorarium by reason of his unauthorized absences. This rule is pursuant to
DBM Local Budget Circular No. 63, in relation to Section 393 ofthe Local Government Code,
which provides in part that Sangguniang Barangay Members are paid in the form of
honorarium, and as defined in the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual,
honorarium is that remuneration given to a public official for services actually rendered.

Hence, the grant of honorarium is based principally on services actually rendered by

the claimant thereof.

This rule is likewise applicable to your case, since you have served as a Sangguniang
Kabataan Chairman and consequently an exdficio Sangguniang Barangay Member from
2OO7 to 2OtO.

Therefore, if you have actually rendered services for the month of November, 2010
as a Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman, then you are entitled to receive the corresponding
honoraria, in the absence of any other ground which would give good reason for the
deprivation of the same. The Punong Barangay cannot justify the withholding of such
honoraria as a retaliatory measure, considering that you filed an administrative case against
him. On the contrary, such arbitrary act by the Punong Barangay, if proven by substantial
evidence, may be a ground for an administrative case for abuse of authority under Section
60 (e) of the Local Government Code of 1991 and a criminal case for violation of Section 3
(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

rector
l{