EN BANC
[G.R. No. 134740.
October 23, 2001]
IRENE V. CRUZ, LILIA H. GUNGON, LOURDES C. FERNANDEZ, CAROLINNE A. PANALIGAN, and CONCEPCION C. RUBY, in their own behalf and in representation of their co-employees, numbering three hundred thirty, in the Sugar Regulatory Administration, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The Case
The case is an appeal via
certiorari from the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA)[1] denying the grant of social amelioration benefits to
employees of the Sugar Regulatory Administration hired after October 31, 1989.
The Facts
The Sugar Regulatory
Administration (SRA, for brevity) is a government owned corporation. Pursuant to legislative enactments,[2] it adopted various resolutions since 1963 granting
the payment of social amelioration benefits (SAB) to all its employees, sourced
from its corporate funds.
In 1989, Congress enacted Republic
Act No. 6758[3] which took effect on July 1, 1989. Pursuant to Section 23 thereof, the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation
Circular No. 10,[4] the imple- menting rules and regulations of the law.
In May 1994, the Resident Auditor
of the Commission on Audit in the SRA, Ms. Juanita A. Villarosa, examined the
accounts of SRA. Pursuant to Section 12
of Republic Act No. 6758, which provides that “such other additional
compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as
of July 1, 1989, not integrated into the standardized rates shall continue
to be authorized,”[5] Ms. Villa- rosa questioned the legality of the
payment of the SAB to all employees of SRA.
In a letter dated September 8,
1994, the Compensation and Position Classification Bureau, DBM, through its
Director, Miguel B. Doctor, stated that there were no conflicting provisions
between CCC No. 10 and R. A. No. 6758.
The DBM further ruled that the grant of the SAB had no legal basis and
was in violation of R. A. No. 6758.[6]
Accordingly, the auditor suspended
payment of SAB to SRA employees. The
SRA Administrator, Rodolfo A. Gamboa, filed a letter dated September 26, 1994[7] with the COA requesting the lifting of the
suspension. In the meantime, the
affected SRA employees appealed to the Office of the President for the
continued grant of SAB.[8]
On January 18, 1996, COA[9] denied the request for the lifting of suspension of
payment of SAB. It claimed that upon
the effectivity of R. A. No. 6758, the grant of SAB was no longer allowed
unless there was a prior authority from the Department of Budget and Management
or Office of the President or a legislative issuance.[10]
On May 11, 1996, the Office of the
President, through Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, issued a 1st
Indorsement, granting post facto approval/ratification of the SAB to SRA
employees.[11]
On the basis of the 1st
Indorsement of the Office of the President, the SRA filed a motion for
reconsideration with the COA for the lifting of the suspension of payment of
SAB to its employees. In its decision[12] dated November 4, 1997, COA set aside Decision No.
96-020. The COA allowed the payment of
SAB to SRA employees but only to those hired before October 31, 1989. Other employees remained not entitled to
said benefits.
On January 21, 1998, the SRA filed
with COA a motion for partial reconsideration claiming that the authority
granted by the Office of the President covered all employees of the SRA
regardless of the date of hiring.[13] In a resolution dated June 23, 1998,[14] the COA denied with finality the motion for partial
reconsideration.[15]
On July 20, 1998, SRA Administrator
Nicolas A. Alonso issued a memorandum ordering the lifting of the disallowance
of payment of SAB to all employees hired before October 31, 1989. Those employees hired after such date were
informed that the SAB granted to them in 1994 “shall be deducted starting
September, 1998 thru monthly payroll deduction within a period of four (4)
years, or equivalent to 48 monthly installments.”[16]
Hence, this petition.[17]
The Issues
The issue to be resolved is
whether respondent COA gravely abused its discretion in denying social
amelioration benefits to SRA employees hired after October 31, 1989.
On December 22, 1998, the
Solicitor General filed a manifestation, in lieu of comment, recommending the
reversal of COA Decision Nos. 97-689 and 98-256.[18]
The Court’s Ruling
We grant the petition.
The classification of COA as to
who were entitled to the SAB and excluding therefrom those employees hired
after October 31, 1989, has no legal basis.
The date of hiring of an employee
can not be considered as a substantial distinction. The employees, based on the title or position they were holding,
were exposed to the same type of work, regardless of the date they were
hired. The date of hiring is not among
the factors that shall be taken into consideration in fixing compensation or
granting of benefits. R. A. No. 6758,
Section 2 provides, thus:
“Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. – It is hereby declared the policy of the State to provide equal pay for substantially equal work and to base differences in pay upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements of the positions. xxx”
Evidently, any distinction among
employees must be based on substantial differences, that is, level or rank,
degree of difficulty and amount of work.
To discriminate against some employees on the basis solely of date of
hiring is to run against the progressive and social policy of the law.
The Commission on Audit, in COA
Decision No. 96-020, ruled that the
board resolutions of the Sugar Regulatory Administration could no longer
be considered as the “prior authority” for the release of the social
amelioration benefits as per R. A. No. 6758 and CCC No. 10. It further ruled that such benefits may be
granted if there was a prior authority from the Office of the President. Yet, when the SRA employees were finally
able to secure a post facto approval/ratification from the Office of the
President,[19] the COA declared, by a sweeping statement, that only
those hired before October 31, 1989, were entitled to the SAB. It did not mention any legal basis or
justification for the distinction.
R. A. No. 6758 and CCC No. 10 do
not make any distinction between those hired before and after October 31,
1989. Neither did the 1st
Indorsement of the Office of the President make any such distinction. The legal maxim that “when the law does not
distinguish, neither should the court”[20] apply in this case.
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE COA
Decision No. 97-689 and No. 98-256. The
Sugar Regulatory Administration shall cease implementing the payroll deduction
per Memorandum dated July 20, 1998,[21] and the deductions made since September 1998, until
the present shall be reimbursed to petitioners.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., CJ., Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago,
De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., on official leave.
[1] COA Decision No. 97-689 dated November 4, 1997
and COA Decision No. 98-256 dated June 23, 1998, denying the motion for
reconsideration of COA Decision No. 97-689.
[2] R. A. No. 632 (the
law creating PHILSUGIN); P. D. 388 (the law creating PHILSUCOM), as amended by
P. D. 1192; P. D. 775; and P. D. 985.
[3] Compensation and
Position Classification Act of 1989, commonly known as the Salary
Standardization Law.
[4] Dated October 2,
1989, but which took effect retroactively on July 1, 1989.
[5] Rollo, p. 52.
[6] Rollo, pp.
50-51.
[7] Rollo, pp.
55-57.
[8] Rollo, pp.
62-66.
[9] In COA Decision No.
96-020 (Rollo, pp. 58-61).
[10] Rollo, p. 60;
emphasis supplied.
[11] Rollo, pp.
67-69.
[12] COA Decision No.
97-689 (Rollo, pp. 74-75).
[13] Rollo, pp.
80-83.
[14] Denominated as COA
Decision No. 98-256.
[15] Rollo, p. 84.
[16] Rollo, p. 85.
[17] Rollo, pp.
8-33. On August 10, 1999, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp.
116-117).
[18] Rollo, pp.
97-104.
[19] 1st Indorsement dated May 11, 1996 (Rollo,
pp. 67-69).
[20] Salonga vs.
The Executive Secretary, G. R. No. 138698, October 10, 2000.
[21] Rollo, p. 85.