Republic of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
TERESITA
L. ARAOS, CORAZON L. BALAGBIS, ROBERTO B. BAUTISTA, MARITA S. BELTRAN, RAUL
A. CASIANO, HIDELZA B. CASTILLO, ELEONORA CINCO, MAY CATHERINE C. CIRIACO,
ERLINDA G. DEL ROSARIO, AMELITA C. DELA TORRE, ALMA R. FAUSTO, ANTONETTE L.
FERNANDEZ, CORITA M. GADUANG, VIRGINIA E. GALLARDE, MA. LUZ C. GENEROSO, MA.
TERESA C. IGNACIO, EDDIE A. JARA, JOSIE MAGANA, ANTONIO G. MARALIT,
NANCIANCINO L. MONREAL, MARIBEL D. ORTIZ, ALAN GENE O. PADILLA, JESUS C.
PAJARILLO, MIGUEL E. ROCA JR., EDGAR M. SANDALO, AGNES E. SAN JOSE, EVELYN P.
SAAYON, JUDY FRANCES A. SEE, MARIO R. SIBUCAO, CARMEN O. SORIANO, and ARNOLD
A. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, - versus - HON.
LEA REGALA, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 226, Quezon City and SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM (SSS), Respondents. |
G.R. No. 174237 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: February
18, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On December 16, 1975, Presidential Decree No. 847,
“ADOPTING A COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR THE CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE AND RELATED
MATTERS,” was issued, its provision pertinent to the case at bar reads:
SECTION 3. As a general rule, the
salaries of Career Executive Service
Officers shall start at Grade 2 of the corresponding rank in this
Compensation Scheme and those of incumbents of and new appointees to Career
Executive Service positions who are not
Career Executive Service Officers shall start at Grade 1 of the
corresponding rank: Provided, That in the case of said incumbents who are not
members of the Career Executive Service, subsequent salary increases and/or
rank promotions may be granted only after satisfactory completion of the Career
Executive Service Development Program and compliance with such requirements as
the Board shall set: Provided, further, That nothing herein stated shall reduce
any salary received by any incumbent of any Career Executive Service position
as a consequence of the implementation of the herein Compensation Scheme,
except that the salary of his successor shall be in conformity with this
Scheme. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
On July 3,
1991, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Order No. 372, “MODIFYING
THE RANKING STRUCTURE AND SALARY SCHEDULE IN THE CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE (CES),”
the relevant sections of which provide:
SECTION 1. The ranking structure
and salary schedule in the Career Executive Service (CES) are hereby modified
to read as follows:
CES Rank Salary Grade
CESO I SG 30
CESO II SG 29
CESO III SG 28
CESO IV SG 27
CESO V SG 26
CESO VI SG 25
SECTION 2. The Career
Executive Service Board shall establish the mechanics for the classification of
members of the CES in accordance with the above ranking structure and shall
issue the corresponding rules and regulations.
SECTION 3. All issuances, rules
and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this
Memorandum Order are hereby repealed. (underscoring supplied)
On October 21, 1994, the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
issued Resolution No. 94-5840 providing that a Career Executive
Service Officer (CESO) is entitled to the second step of the salary grade of
his rank.[1]
The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) later issued,
on April 12, 1996, Resolution No. 129 stating that:
x x x Career Executive Service Officers
(CESOs), who were already receiving at least the second step of the
salary grades of their ranks due to merit or longevity prior to the
issuance of CSC Resolution No. 5840, otherwise known as “Rules on Compensation
in the CES including those of Graduates of NDCP and CESDP”, are entitled
to a one-step adjustment as provided for in the Paragraph 3.1.4 of
subject Resolution, the spirit of which is to set apart the CESOs and
non-CESOs;
x x x [E]ntitlement is made retroactive to
November 1994, the effectivity date of Resolution No. 5840.[2]
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Still
later, the CESB issued, on May 29, 1996, Circular No. 12 laying down guidelines
on the grant of a one-step adjustment in the salary of CESOs. The applicable provisions of the Circular
state:
x x x [A] CESO whose salary at the time of the issuance of CSC Resolution No. 94-5840 is already on the second or higher step of the salary grade of his rank by virtue of step increments earlier granted based either on merit or length of service, shall be entitled to a one-step adjustment in the salary grade of his rank effective 26 November 1994; provided that where the rank of a CESO has a salary grade lower than that of the CES position to which he is assigned/appointed to, the one-step salary adjustment shall be based on the salary grade of the higher position; provided, finally, that where the salary of the CESO is already at the eighth step of the salary grade of his rank or position, this one-step entitlement shall no longer apply;
This benefit shall likewise apply to those appointed to the CES ranks after the issuance of the said CSC resolution who are already receiving the second or higher step of the salary grades of their ranks subject to the conditions set forth herein;
Career Executive Service Officers (CESOs) are officials who have CES eligibility and have been duly appointed by the president to ranks in the CES;
This Circular shall take effect immediately.[3] (italics and underscoring supplied)
Republic Act (RA) No. 8282, otherwise known as the
Social Security Act of 1997, was then enacted, Section 3(c)[4]
of which exempted respondent Social Security System (SSS) from the application
of RA No. 6758, “The Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989” or the Salary Standardization Law. The Social Security Commission (SSC) thus issued,
on July 24, 1997, Resolution No. 523 prescribing the new SSS Salary Structure
and Benefits Package.
In 1999, petitioners-SSS employees were appointed
and/or promoted to CESO ranks.
On June 20, 2001, the SSC approved Resolution No.
483 appropriating funds for the grant of a one-step salary increment to nine
SSS CESOs. Shortly thereafter, however,
or on June 25, 2001, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Order No.
20, which reads in relevant part:
x x x I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President
of the Republic of the Philippines xxx do hereby order and direct all heads
of GOCCs, GFIs and subsidiaries exempt from or not following the SSL to
SECTION 1.
Immediately suspend the grant of any salary increases
and new or increased benefits such as, but not limited to, allowances;
incentives; reimbursement of expenses; intelligence, confidential or
discretionary funds; extraordinary expenses, and such other benefits not in
accordance with those granted under SSL.
This suspension shall cover senior officer level positions,
including Members of the Board of Directors or Trustees.
x x x x
SECTION 3.
Any increase in salary or compensation of GOCCs/GFIs that are not
in accordance with the SSL shall be subject to the approval of the
President. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
The corporate auditor of the Commission on Audit thus
advised the President of the SSS, by Memorandum dated June 29, 2001, against
the implementation of a one-step salary increment for SSS CESOs in view of
Memorandum Order No. 20 of the President.
The Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) likewise issued, on
August 13, 2001, an opinion, that unless approved by the Office of the
President, a one-step salary increment for SSS CESOs may not be implemented.[5]
Acting under the OGCC’s advice, the SSS recommended,
on April 9, 2002, to the Office of the President the approval of a one-step
salary adjustment for SSS CESOs. On even
date, the Department of Budget and Management, to which the Office of the
President referred the SSS recommendation, declared:
The CES Charter under Presidential Decree No.
1 provides the grant of attractive and better compensation and benefits to
CESOs to reward and motivate them in their pursuit of personal and career
excellence. Along this line, CSC
Resolution No. 94-5840 provides higher salary through an automatic step
adjustment as reward and to set them apart from other government executives
through pay.
x x x x
. . .
[T]he CES pay under CSC Resolution No. 94-5840 is based on SSL. The S[alary] G[rade] equivalence for each
CESO rank and the automatic 2nd step adjustment are all based on the
salary schedule and position classification and compensation system prescribed
under SSL. Since SSS is exempt from
the SSL, we believe that CSC Resolution No. 94-5840 does not apply to SSS and other SSL-exempt
agencies, but only to agencies following the SSL.[6] (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Petitioners,
however, made repeated requests to the SSS management for the release of the
one-step salary adjustment, but to no avail, drawing them to file, on January
9, 2004, a petition[7] for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Quezon City, praying that the SSS be ordered to implement the
one-step salary increment due them by virtue of their CESO rank.
By
Decision of August 30, 2004,[8] Branch
226 of the Quezon City RTC dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals, by Decision of December
29, 2005,[9]
affirmed the dismissal, hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.[10]
The petition is bereft of
merit.
For mandamus to issue, it is essential that
the person petitioning for it has a clear legal right to the claim sought.[11] It will not issue to enforce a right, or to
compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a
substantial doubt exists.[12] Thus, unless the right to the relief sought
is unclouded, it will be denied.
The
Court gathers that the intention of the law is to maintain, under the Modified
Ranking Structure and Salary Schedule in the CES, the distinction between CESOs
and non-CESOs established by Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 847.
The
maintenance of the distinct status given to CESOs who, prior to the issuance of
CSC Resolution No. 94-5840 on October 21, 1994, were already receiving at least
the second step of the salary grade of their rank due to longevity or merit is
the rationale behind the one-step salary increment granted by Resolution No.
129.[13]
Without
the increment, a CESO who, due to longevity or merit, is already receiving the
second step of the salary grade of his rank as of the effectivity of CSC
Resolution No. 94-5840, would be no different from a similarly situated non-CESO
within the same salary grade. Thus, even
if the one-step salary increment granted by CESB Circular No. 12 were not
covered by the suspension of the grant in Memorandum Order No. 20, petitioners
must nevertheless satisfy the conditions established by CESB Circular No. 12 to
entitle them to the one-step salary increment.
Petitioners
must thus establish that when they were appointed or promoted to CESO ranks in
1999, they were already receiving the second step of the salary grade of
their ranks. Petitioners failed to
do so, however.
Besides,
as the SSS points out,[14] CESB
Circular No. 12 is unenforceable. Per
the certification issued by the Office of the National Register (ONAR) of the
University of the
Sec. 3. Filing. – (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of sanction against any party or persons.
x x x x
Sec. 4. Effectivity. – In addition to other rule-making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them. (underscoring supplied)
As CESB
Circular No. 12 has not been filed with the ONAR, it has yet to take effect. It is, therefore, unenforceable.[16]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, p. 412.
[2] Id. at 420.
[3] Id. at 421-422.
[4] It reads:
(c) The Commission, upon the recommendation of the SSS President, shall appoint an actuary, and such other personnel as may be deemed necessary, fix their reasonable compensation, allowances and other benefits, prescribe their duties and establish such methods and procedures as may be necessary to insure the efficient, honest and economical administration of the provisions and purposes of this Act: Provided, however, That the personnel of the SSS below the rank of Vice-President shall be appointed by the SSS President: Provided, further, That the personnel appointed by the SSS President, except those below the rank of assistant manager, shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission: Provided, further, That the personnel of the SSS shall be selected only from civil service eligibles and be subject to civil service rules and regulations: Provided, finally, That the SSS shall be exempt from the provisions of Republic Act No. 6758 and Republic Act No. 7430.
[5] Vide rollo, pp. 199-201.
[6] Rollo, pp. 205-206.
[7] Records, pp. 1-10.
[8] Id. at 560-581.
[9] Decision penned by then Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Aurora Santiago-Lagman. CA rollo, pp. 115-127.
[10] Rollo, pp. 10-27.
[11] BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Manikan, G.R. No. 148789, January 16, 2003, 395 SCRA, 373, 275.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Vide records, p. 420.
[14] Rollo, pp. 170-173.
[15] Records, p. 197.
[16] Vide GMA Network, Inc. v. Movie Television Review and Classification Board, G.R. No. 148579, February 5, 2007, 514 SCRA 191, 196.