|
PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, Petitioner, - versus - COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 156537
Present:
Puno, C.J., QUISUMBING, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, nazario, garcia, and VELASCO,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
|
|
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 64[1] of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing COA Decision No. 2000-386
dated
Petitioner is a government owned and controlled corporation
established pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1084. It is tasked with, among others, reclaiming
and administering foreshore lands and other public properties.
Respondent COA is the constitutional body mandated to
examine and audit all government instrumentalities and investment of public
funds.[2]
On
Sometime in January 1999, petitioner granted its employees
191 sacks of rice with a total cost of P219,650.90. On
post-audit, the COA resident auditor disallowed 130 sacks amounting to P149,500.00
under Notice of Disallowance No. 99-012D-99 dated
In a letter dated July 16, 1999, petitioner sought a
reconsideration of the disallowance invoking, among others, De Jesus v.
Commission on Audit[9] holding
that the DBM Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 discontinuing without
qualification all allowances and fringe benefits granted to personnel on top of
their basic salaries effective November 1, 1989 tends to deprive government
workers of their allowances and additional compensation “needed to keep body
and soul together.”
Petitioner filed with the office of its resident auditor a
request for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, petitioner
interposed an appeal to the Director of the then Corporate Audit Office (CAO
II). However, in its 1st
Indorsement dated
On
On
Section 12 specifically enumerates the allowances and benefits which are not integrated into the standardized salary rates. Other than those enumerated and those that may be determined by the DBM, such other additional compensation whether in cash or in kind, which are not integrated into the prescribed salary rates shall continue to be authorized only for incumbents. The law is clear in itself.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the COA denied
the same in its Resolution dated
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari.
The sole
issue for our resolution is whether respondent COA committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disallowing the rice
subsidy granted to petitioner’s employees hired after
At the heart of the controversy is the proper
interpretation of Section 12 of R.A.
No. 6758 which provides:
SEC.
12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. – All allowances,
except for representation and transportation allowances, clothing and laundry
allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board
government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign
service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not
otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed
included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. 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 salary rates
shall continue to be authorized. (Emphasis
supplied).
Existing additional compensation of any national government official or employee paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basic salary of said official or employee and shall be paid by the National Government.
The foregoing clause must be read in relation to Section 17
of the same law reproduced below:
SEC.
17. Salaries of incumbents. – Incumbents of positions presently
receiving salaries and additional compensation/fringe benefits including those
absorbed from local government units and other emoluments, the aggregate of
which exceeds the standardized salary rate as herein prescribed, shall continue
to receive such excess compensation, which shall be referred to as transition
allowance. The transition allowance shall be reduced by the amount of salary
adjustment that the incumbent shall receive in the future.
Under the above provisions, we rule that petitioner’s personnel
hired after
It is a
cardinal rule that in interpreting a statute, the purpose of the Court is to
ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent.[10] Differently stated, the true object of
statutory construction is to ascertain the meaning and will of the lawmaking
body to the end that it may be enforced.[11]
This is not the first time we interpret Section 12 of R.A.
No. 6758.
In Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit,[12]
we ruled that with the salary standardization scheme provided for by R.A. No.
6758, additional financial incentives may no longer be given by the government
owned and controlled corporations to their personnel except to incumbents as of
In Philippine International Trading Corporation v.
Commission on Audit,[13]
we held that incumbents as of July 1, 1989 shall continue to receive the
allowance mentioned in Section 12 even after R.A. No. 6758 took effect, thus:
First of all, we must mention that
this Court has confirmed in Philippine Ports Authority vs. Commission on
Audit the legislative intent to protect incumbents who are receiving
salaries and/or allowances over and above those authorized by RA 6758 to
continue to receive the same even after RA 6758 took effect. In reserving the benefit to incumbents, the
legislature has manifested its intent to gradually phase out this privilege
without upsetting the policy of non-diminution of pay and consistent with the
rule that laws should only be applied prospectively in the spirit of fairness
and justice. x x x
At the time of the passage of the said law, there was no
intention on the part of the legislature to revoke existing benefits being
enjoyed by incumbents as of
In
another 1999 case, National Tobacco Administration v. Commission on Audit,[14] we
explained that under the first sentence of Section 12, all allowances are integrated
into the prescribed salary rates, except:
(1)
Representation
and transportation allowance (RATA);
(2)
Clothing and
laundry allowances;
(3)
Subsistence
allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels;
(4)
Subsistence
allowance of hospital personnel;
(5)
Hazard pay;
(6)
Allowance of
foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and
(7)
Such other
additional compensation not otherwise specified in Section 12 as may be
directed by the DBM.
These allowances are “granted
to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse the
expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions.” No. 7 of the foregoing list is a “catch-all
proviso” covering all other allowances/fringe benefits not integrated into the
basic salary and allowed to be continued only for incumbents as of
It is
thus decisively clear that rice subsidy may only be granted to petitioner’s
personnel who were incumbents as of
We find,
however, that the personnel concerned, in receiving the rice subsidy, acted in
good faith in the honest belief they were entitled to such benefit. Hence,
following our rulings in Blanquera v. Alcala,[15] De
Jesus v. Commissioner of Audit,[16] Kapisanan
ng mga Manggagawa sa Government Service Insurance System (KMG) v. Commission on
Audit,[17] and Philippine
Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit,[18]
the affected employees of petitioner PEA need not refund the rice subsidy they
received. In these cases, the parties,
in receiving incentive benefits, acted in good faith. Thus, they were no longer ordered to refund
those benefits disallowed by COA.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The challenged COA Decision No. 2000-386 and
COA Resolution No. 2002-170 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The 130 employees of the petitioner PEA who
received the rice subsidy for the period
SO
ORDERED.
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL GUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO Associate Justice |
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Review of Judgments and Final Orders or
Resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.
[2] Art. IX-D, Sec. 2(1), 1987 Constitution.
[3] Entitled “An Act Prescribing A Revised
Compensation And Position Classification System In The Government And For Other
Purposes.” It took effect on
[4] Sec. 2., R.A. No. 6758.
[5] Sec. 12 specifically mentions these allowances as representation and transportation allowances, clothing and laundry allowances, allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel, hazard pay, and allowances of foreign service personnel abroad.
[6] Sec. 16.
[7] Sec. 12 and 17.
[8] Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[9] G.R. No. 109023,
[10] Torres v. Limjap, 56 Phil. 141 (1931), Macondray & Co. v. Eustaquio, 64 Phil. 446 (1937), Roldan v. Villarama, 69 Phil. 12 (1939).
[11] City of
[12] G.R. No. 159200,
[13] G.R. No. 132593,
[14] G.R. No. 119385,
[15] G.R. No. 109406,
[16] G.R. No. 149153,
[17] G.R. No. 150769,
[18] Supra.