This document summarizes two consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding allowances and benefits granted to GSIS (Government Service Insurance System) employees.
1) COA (Commission on Audit) disallowed increases to certain GSIS employee allowances and benefits after 1989, citing laws that integrated most allowances into standardized salary rates. GSIS challenged these disallowances.
2) Some retired GSIS employees also challenged deductions from their retirement benefits that corresponded to disallowed allowances they had received. GSIS insisted the deductions were valid while the retirees argued otherwise.
The Supreme Court consolidated the two cases to determine the authority of GSIS and COA regarding public employee compensation.
1. Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 138381 April 16, 2002
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 141625 April 16, 2002
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, petitioner,
vs.
ALFREDO D. PINEDA, DANIEL GO, FELINO BULANDUS, FELICIMO J. FERRARIS,
JR., BEN HUR PORLUCAS, LUIS HIPONIA, MARIA LUISA A. FERNANDEZ,
VICTORINA JOVEN, CORAZON S. ALIWANAG, SILVER L. MARTINES, SR.,
RENATO PEREZ, LOLITA CAYLAN, DOUGLAS VALLEJO and LETICIA
ALMAZAN, on their own behalf and on behalf of all GSIS retirees with all of whom they
share a common and general interest, respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
At the core of these two consolidated petitions is the determination of whether the Commission
on Audit (COA) properly disallowed on post-audit, certain allowances and/or fringe benefits
granted to employees of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), after the effectivity
of Republic Act No. 6758, otherwise known as the Salary Standardization Law on July 1, 1989.
I. G.R. No. 138381
In this special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, petitioner GSIS seeks the annulment of COA Decision No. 98-337 dated
August 25, 1998, which affirmed the Resident Auditor's disallowance of monetary benefits
granted to or paid by GSIS in behalf of its employees.
After the effectivity of R.A. No. 6758 on July 1, 1989, petitioner GSIS increased the following
benefits of its personnel: a) longevity pay; b) children's allowance; c) housing allowance for its
branch and assistant branch managers; and d) employer's share in the GSIS Provident Fund from
20% to 45% of basic salary for incumbent employees as of June 30, 1989.
2. The GSIS also remitted employer's share to the GSIS Provident Fund for new employees hired
after June 30, 1989, continued the payment of premiums for group personnel accident insurance
and granted loyalty cash award to its employees in addition to a service cash award.
Upon post-audit and examination, the GSIS Corporate Auditor disallowed the aforementioned
allowances and benefits, citing Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 in relation to sub-paragraphs 5.4 and
5.5 of its implementing rules, DBM Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (CCC No. 10).
The first paragraph of Section 12, R.A. No. 6758 reads:
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. x x x
Sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10,1 meanwhile, supplemented Section 12 above by
enumerating the additional compensation authorized to be continued for incumbent employees as
of July 1, 1989.
According to the Corporate Auditor, R.A. No. 6758 authorized the continued grant of
allowances/fringe benefits not integrated into the standardized salary for incumbents as of June
30, 1989. However, these non-integrated benefits may not be increased after effectivity of the
statute, without prior approval of the DBM or Office of the President or in the absence of
legislative authorization in accordance with CCC No. 10. Explaining this position, the Corporate
Auditor invoked COA Memorandum No. 90-653 dated June 4, 1990, which states:
x x x While it is true that R.A. 6758 and Corporate Compensation Circular (CCC) No. 10
are silent with respect to the increase of allowances/fringe benefits not integrated into the
basic salary and allowed to be continued only for incumbents as of June 30, 1989, it
would be inconsistent to allow further increase in said allowances and fringe benefits
after July 1, 1989 since continuance thereof for incumbents is merely being tolerated until
they vacate their present positions for which they have been authorized to receive
allowances/fringe benefits.2
The Corporate Auditor also did not allow in audit the remittance of employer's share to the GSIS
Provident Fund for new-hires because the continuation of said benefit was only in favor of
incumbents, as explicitly stated in the law. The payment of group insurance premiums covering
all employees was likewise disallowed, for the reason that under sub-paragraph 5.6 of CCC No.
10,3 all fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary not otherwise enumerated under sub-
paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 thereof were already discontinued effective November 1, 1989. As for the
loyalty cash award and the service cash award, the Corporate Auditor opined that only one of the
two monetary incentives may be availed of by GSIS personnel.
3. On February 26, 1993, Mr. Julio Navarrete, Vice-President of the GSIS Human Resources
Group, wrote to respondent COA appealing, in behalf of GSIS, the afore-stated disallowances by
the Corporate Auditor. Mr. Navarrete averred that although it may be conceded that the Salary
Standardization Law did not extend the subject benefits to new-hires after the law's effectivity,
the increase thereof should nonetheless be allowed for incumbents since these benefits have been
enjoyed by said employees even prior to the passage of said law.4
In the case of Philippine Ports Authority v. Commission on Audit,5 which involved a similar
increase, after the enactment of R.A. No. 6758, in the representation and transportation
allowance (RATA) of Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) employees, it was held that:
x x x the date July 1, 1989 does not serve as a cut-off date with respect to the amount of
RATA. The date July 1, 1989 becomes crucial only to determine that as of said date, the
officer was an incumbent and was receiving the RATA, for purposes of entitling him to
its continued grant. This given date should not be interpreted as fixing the maximum
amount of RATA to be received by the official.6
It was further alleged that contrary to the Corporate Auditor's contention, the GSIS Board of
Trustees retained its power to fix and determine the compensation package for GSIS employees
despite the passage of the Salary Standardization Law, pursuant to Section 36 of Presidential
Decree No. 1146, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1981, to wit:
Sec. 36. x x x
The Board of Trustees has the following powers and functions, among others:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Upon the recommendation of the President and General Manager, to approve the
System's organizational and administrative structure and staffing pattern, and "to
establish, fix, review, revise and adjust the appropriate compensation package for the
officers and employees of the System, with reasonable allowances, incentives, bonuses,
privileges and other benefits as may be necessary or proper for the effective
management, operation and administration of the System." For the purpose of this and
the preceding subsection, the System shall be exempt from the rules and requirements of
the Office of the Budget and Management and the Office of the Compensation and
Position Classification;
xxx xxx xxx
Pursuant thereto, the GSIS Board of Trustees may validly increase and grant the subject benefits,
even without securing the imprimatur of the DBM, Office of the President or Congress.
On August 25, 1998, the COA affirmed the disallowances made by the Corporate Auditor and
held that Section 36 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, was already repealed by Section 16 of R.A.
No. 6758.7 The COA similarly concluded that the GSIS Board of Trustees may not unilaterally
4. augment or grant benefits to its personnel, without the necessary authorization required under
CCC No. 10.8
GSIS filed a motion for reconsideration of the COA decision, invoking the ruling in De Jesus, et
al. v. COA and Jamoralin.9 Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (CCC No. 10) was
declared to be of no legal force or effect due to its non-publication in the Official Gazette or a
newspaper of general circulation. In view of this development, GSIS posited that the questioned
disallowances no longer had any leg to stand on and that COA should consequently lift the
disallowances premised on CCC No. 10.
On March 23, 1999, the COA denied the motion for reconsideration stating:
Although CCC No. 10 has been declared ineffective due to its non-publication as
provided for in Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the disallowances on the
increased rates of the allowances/fringe benefits can still be sustained because as ruled
earlier, the power of the governing boards of corporations to fix compensation and
allowances of personnel, including the authority to increase the rates, pursuant to their
specific charters had already been repealed by Sec. 3 of P.D. 1597 and Section 16 of R.A.
6758. The other reasons or grounds relied upon by the petitioner upon which the Motion
is predicated have already been judiciously passed upon by this Commission when it
rendered the subject COA Decision No. 98-337.
Accordingly, there being no new, sufficient and material evidence adduced as would
warrant a reversal or modification of the decision herein sought to be reconsidered, this
Commission denies with finality the instant motion for reconsideration for utter lack of
merit.10
Hence, this petition, challenging the above decision and resolution of the COA on the following
grounds:
A.)RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE POWER
SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1146, AS
AMENDED, TO THE GSIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TO ESTABLISH AND FIX THE
APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION PACKAGE FOR GSIS OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES HAS ALREADY BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6758.
B.)RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITONER'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION DESPITE THE DECLARATION BY THIS HONORABLE
COURT IN THE CASE OF RODOLFO S. DE JESUS et al. vs. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT and LEONARDO L. JAMORALIN, THAT CCC NO. 10 - THE MAIN BASIS OF
THE QUESTIONED DISALLOWANCE - IS INVALID AND INEFFECTIVE FOR
LACK OF THE REQUIRED PUBLICATION.11
II. G.R. No. 141625
5. This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was precipitated by the
factual antecedents of G.R. No. 138381. While GSIS was appealing the disallowances made by
the Corporate Auditor above, some of its employees retired and submitted the requisite papers
for the processing of their retirement benefits. Since the retired employees received allowances
and benefits which had been disallowed by the Corporate Auditor, GSIS required them to
execute deeds of consent that would authorize GSIS to deduct from their retirement benefits the
previously paid allowances, in case these were finally adjudged to be improper. Some of the
retired employees agreed to sign the deed, while others did not. Nonetheless, GSIS went ahead
with the deductions.
On April 16, 1998, a number of these retired GSIS employees12 (hereafter referred to as
"retirees") brought Case No. 001-98 before the GSIS Board of Trustees (hereafter referred to as
"GSIS Board") questioning the legality of the deductions. They claimed that COA disallowances
can not be deducted from retirement benefits, considering that these were explicitly exempted
from such deductions under the last paragraph of Section 39, Republic Act No. 8291, which
states:
SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. - x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the benefits, sums or monies
corresponding to the benefits under this Act shall be exempt from attachment,
garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by the courts, quasi-judicial
agencies or administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA) disallowances
and from all financial obligations of the members, including his pecuniary accountability
arising from or caused or occasioned by his exercise or performance of his official
functions or duties, or incurred relative to or in connection with his position or work
except when his monetary liability, contractual or otherwise, is in favor of the GSIS.
The GSIS Board subsequently referred the case for hearing to its Corporate Secretary, Atty.
Alicia Albert. Thereafter, the retirees and GSIS, through its Legal Services Group (LSG), entered
into a stipulation of facts and agreed on a focal issue, namely: whether the COA disallowances
may be legally deducted from the retirement benefits, on the premise that the same are monetary
liabilities of the retirees in favor of GSIS under Section 39 above. GSIS also insisted that since
the deductions were anchored on the disallowances made by the COA, the retirees' remedy was
to ventilate the issue before said Commission and not the GSIS Board.
Meanwhile, the De Jesus case mentioned in G.R. No. 138381 was promulgated, rendering CCC
No. 10 legally ineffective. This prompted the hearing officer to suggest that the parties enter into
an agreement as to what allowances and benefits are covered by CCC No. 10, so that a partial
decision can be rendered thereon. The retirees thus filed a motion for partial decision, submitting
that there no longer existed any obstacle to the increase in allowances and benefits covered by
CCC No. 10. These allegedly include: a) GSIS management's share in the Provident Fund; b)
initial payment of the productivity bonus; c) acceleration implementation of the new salary
schedule effective August 1, 1995; d) increase in clothing allowance, rice allowance, meal
6. subsidy, children's allowance and longevity pay; e) loyalty award; f) 1995 mid-year financial
assistance; and g) other allowances as may be suggested by the Vice-President of the GSIS
Human Resources Group.13
On November 25, 1998, GSIS filed an opposition to the retiree's motion for partial decision,14
asserting that De Jesus had no bearing on the principal issue which, as agreed upon, was the
interpretation of Section 39 of RA No. 8291. GSIS also filed on even date, a motion to dismiss,15
alleging that the nullity of CCC No. 10 rendered the petition moot and academic and paved the
way for the payment of the controverted allowances earlier deducted from the retirement
benefits.
Replying to the two pleadings filed by GSIS, the retirees countered that a motion to dismiss was
a prohibited pleading under Section 14.13, Rule XIV of the GSIS Implementing Rules and
Regulations.16 Moreover, the retirees maintained that a motion to dismiss may be filed in
proceedings before the GSIS Board only prior to the filing of an answer which GSIS had already
done. Also, the LSG had previously agreed to a partial decision based on the De Jesus case; it
could thus no longer take a contradictory stand by opposing the retiree's motion for partial
decision.17
On January 14, 1999, the retirees filed a motion for summary judgment18 claiming that there
were no factual issues involved and that the question raised in the petition was purely legal in
nature. The matter was directly submitted to the GSIS Board for its consideration and resolution.
On March 3, 1999, the GSIS Board issued Resolution No. 72,19 dismissing the petition. A motion
for reconsideration filed by the retirees was also denied by the Board in its Resolution No. 16120
dated May 18, 1999.
The matter was then elevated to the Court of Appeals, which rendered a decision on September
30, 1999, disposing as follows:
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Petition is GRANTED. Resolution
No. 72, Annex "A" of the Petition and Resolution No. 161 Annex "C" of the Petition are
hereby SET ASIDE and NULLIFIED. The Hearing Officer of the Board of Trustees of
the Respondent is directed to proceed, with dispatch, with the proceedings of Case No.
001-98, as provided for in the Rules and regulations implementing Republic Act 8291
(IRR).
SO ORDERED.21
The appellate court held that the motion to dismiss filed by the LSG before the GSIS Board is a
prohibited pleading under applicable GSIS rules. The GSIS also had jurisdiction over the
retirees' petition, as it pertained to the interpretation and application of Section 39 of R.A. No.
8291, a law exclusively administered by the GSIS Board. Contrary to the LSG's submissions, the
Court of Appeals ruled that there was no identity in subject matter between the retiree's petition
and the appeal from the auditor's disallowances filed by GSIS with the COA. Thus, the GSIS
Board may take cognizance of the retirees' petition independently from the COA proceedings.
7. Hence, this second petition, assigning the following as errors:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
GSIS HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CASE PENDING BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT CASE.22
On August 20, 2001, the two petitions were consolidated.
During the pendency of these petitions, GSIS Board Resolution No. 79,23 which authorized the
Provident Fund rate increase for incumbent employees, was approved retroactively from March
1, 1994 by then President Joseph Estrada.24 Thus, there no longer appears to be any basis for
disallowing the rate increase in management contribution to the Provident Fund from 20% to
45% of the basic salary received by petitioner's incumbent employees. The presidential approval
cured the lack of authorization cited by respondent COA for disallowing this particular increase
in benefit.
We now proceed to the resolution of the twin petitions.
Petitioner GSIS insists that the GSIS Board retained its power to increase the subject benefits
under Section 36 of P.D. 1146, as amended (or the Revised GSIS Charter), despite the passage of
R.A. No. 6758, particularly Section 16 thereof. The latter, which is a general law, can not repeal
or take precedence over the former because the Revised GSIS Charter is a special law that
specifically exempts GSIS from Office of the Compensation and Position Classification
coverage.
We need not delve lengthily into this submission as this was earlier laid to rest by the Court in
Philippine International Trading Corporation (PITC) v. COA,25 where we held that "the repeal
by Section 16 of RA 6758 of 'all corporate charters that exempt agencies from the coverage of
the system' was clear and expressed necessarily to achieve the purposes for which the law was
enacted, that is, the standardization of salaries of all employees in government owned and/or
controlled corporations to achieve 'equal pay for substantially equal work'."26 As things now
stand, GSIS is already exempt from salary standardization by express provision of R.A. 829127 –
a subsequent enactment approved on May 30, 1997 which amended the Revised GSIS Charter.
But since GSIS was still governed by the latter at the time the increase in benefits were
disallowed in audit, GSIS was then yet covered by the Salary Standardization Law, thereby
making our ruling in PITC presently relevant and applicable.
We now come to the legal propriety of the COA disallowances.
8. For purposes of clarity, a distinction must initially be made between those allowances which are
deemed consolidated into the standardized salary and those which are not under the terms of
R.A. No. 6758. As correctly pointed out by petitioner GSIS, the housing allowance, longevity
pay and children's allowance are non-integrated benefits, expressly made so by sub-paragraphs
5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10 in relation to the last sentence of Section 12 (par. 1), R.A. No. 6758.
On the other hand, the payment of group personnel accident insurance premiums, loyalty cash
award and service cash award are not excluded from the standardized salary by the same
provisions of CCC No. 10 or R.A. No. 6758. These latter allowances are thus considered
integrated into the basic salary and are treated differently under the same law.
A. NON-INTEGRATED BENEFITS AND ALLOWANCES
a. Longevity Pay and Children's Allowance
As regards the increase in longevity pay and children's allowance, we find applicable our
pronouncement in Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) v. COA.28 This case involved an adjustment
in the representation and transportation allowance (RATA) of incumbent PPA employees after
the effectivity of R.A. No. 6758 on July 1, 1989. The RATA therein is similar to the longevity
pay and children's allowance subject of the instant petition, in the sense that: a) it is also a non-
integrated allowance authorized to be continued for incumbents under Section 12, R.A. No.
6758; and b) the rate thereof did not consist of a definite amount but was subject to certain
factors and/or stipulations that were nonetheless fixed before R.A. 6758 took effect.
In the PPA case, the adjustment was brought about by a corresponding increase in the
employees' basic salary upon which the 40% RATA was based. Respondent Commission
disallowed the payment of RATA differentials arguing, as in this petition, that the RATA should
be fixed at the prevailing rate prior to July 1, 1989, regardless of the increase in basic salary. It
was postulated therein that consistent with the second sentence of said Section 12 (par. 1), the
RATA should no longer be based on 40% of basic standardized salary but on the highest amount
of RATA received by the incumbent as of July 1, 1989.
We rejected respondent COA's interpretation of Section 12 and held that the date July 1, 1989
should not be construed as a cut-off date for setting the amount of allowances authorized to be
continued under said provision. The date July 1, 1989 is important only for determining whether
an employee is an incumbent and receiving the allowance prior to the law's effectivity in order to
ascertain if such employee is qualified to its continued grant. It is not, however, to be interpreted
as fixing the maximum amount of allowance that an incumbent employee is authorized to
receive, but is only a qualifying date imposed by the statute.
Accordingly, the specific amount of longevity pay and children's allowance being received by an
incumbent GSIS employee as of July 1, 1989 is not to be considered as the highest amount
authorized under the law.
It is thus evident that in adjusting the amount of allowances mentioned above, petitioner GSIS
was merely complying with the policy of non-diminution of pay and benefits enunciated in R.A.
No. 6758.29 This policy does not only pertain specifically to the amount being received by the
9. incumbent as of July 1, 1989, but also to the terms and conditions attached to these benefits prior
to the passage of the statute. Relative to this, it should be noted that respondent COA did not
dispute the fact that these benefits, including the terms and conditions thereof, are part of a
compensation package granted by the GSIS Board to incumbents even before R.A. 6758 took
effect. In turn, this compensation package was incorporated in the 1978 GSIS Revised
Compensation System approved by the President, upon recommendation of the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM).
Thus, to peg the amount of these non-integrated allowances at the figure being received by the
incumbent as of July 1, 1989 would vary the terms of the benefits to which the incumbents are
entitled. This could not have been the intendment of the statute, because such interpretation
would effectively impair the incumbents' rights to these allowances, which have already accrued
prior to July 1, 1989. In other words, before R.A. No. 6758 was enacted, incumbent GSIS
employees had a fixed right to these allowances under the terms and conditions then obtaining.30
They could not therefore be excluded from its enjoyment under the same terms and conditions
without violating basic precepts of fairness and due process.
b. Housing Allowance
In contrast to the two preceding non-integrated benefits, it appears that the housing allowance
given to petitioner's incumbent branch and assistant branch managers before the passage of R.A.
No. 6758 consisted of a fixed amount of P500.00 and P300.00 respectively. Said amounts were
subsequently increased to P2,000.00 and P3,000.00 by virtue of GSIS Board Resolution No.
29431 dated July 26, 1991.
As stated earlier, the power of the GSIS Board to "establish, fix, review, revise and adjust" the
allowances, privileges and other benefits of its employees under Section 36 of the Revised GSIS
Charter has been repealed by R.A. No. 6758.32 As a consequence, the GSIS Board may no longer
grant any increase in housing allowance on its own volition after June 30, 1989.
Further, unlike the two preceding non-integrated benefits, it cannot be said that the affected
branch and assistant branch managers acquired a vested right to any amount of housing
allowance in excess of that granted to them before the passage of R.A. No. 6758. They could not
have been entitled to any amount other than that which was already determined before the law
took effect, because the terms of this allowance did not admit of any adjustment. Otherwise
stated, since the amount of said housing allowance was fixed, the disallowance by the COA of
increases therein would not result in any diminution of benefits for these incumbent managers.
Neither can the GSIS Board unilaterally grant said increases by board resolution because it no
longer had any power to do so when it issued Resolution No. 294.
It appears that respondent COA did not totally disallow the increase in housing allowance, but
merely approved a lesser amount. Respondent COA allowed a 100% increase of P1,000.00 and
P600.00 respectively, in accordance with the amount authorized by the DBM.33 In fact, the DBM
permitted the increase in express recognition of the fact that this has been the practice in GSIS
before the advent of R.A. No. 6758. Consequently, it is only to the extent of the approved
amount that the housing allowance should be allowed in audit.
10. B. INTEGRATED BENEFITS AND ALLOWANCES
a. Group Personnel Accident Insurance Premiums
As stated earlier, the payment of premiums for group personnel accident insurance in favor of
incumbent GSIS employees was not listed as an exception to the standardized salary under
Section 12, R.A. No. 6758 and sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10. As such, it is
considered as a fringe benefit granted on top of basic salary which, according to sub-paragraph
5.6 of CCC No. 10, must be discontinued as of November 1, 1989.
However, as pointed out by petitioner GSIS, CCC No. 10 was declared to be of no legal force
and effect in De Jesus v. COA.34 It can not thus be utilized as a justification for depriving
incumbent employees of integrated benefits which they were receiving prior to R.A. No. 6758.
As held in De Jesus:
x x x it is decisively clear that DBM CCC No. 10, which completely disallows payment
of allowances and other additional compensation to government officials and employees,
starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere interpretative and internal regulation. It is
something more than that. And why not, when it tends to deprive government workers of
their allowances and additional compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul
together. At the very least, before said circular under attack may be permitted to
substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees concerned
should be apprised and alerted by the publication of subject circular in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines-to the end that they
may be given amplest opportunity to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and
to ventilate their stance on the matter. This approach is more in keeping with democratic
precepts and rudiments of fairness and transparency.35
Conformably, since the disallowance of the premium payments was founded upon CCC No. 10,
the consequent outcome of the latter's nullification is to remove any obstacle to the aforesaid
benefit.
The subsequent publication of CCC No. 10 in the Official Gazette on March 1, 1999,36 neither
cured the defect nor retroact to the time that the aforesaid items were disallowed in audit. Again,
in PITC v. COA,37 we ruled that from the time the COA disallowed the benefit up to the filing of
the instant petition, CCC No. 10 remained in legal limbo due to its lack of publication. And
because publication is a condition precedent to the effectivity of CCC No. 10, it must first be
complied with before affecting individual rights; otherwise, "such omission would offend due
process insofar as it would deny the public, knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern
it."38
b. Loyalty and Service Cash Award
We have carefully examined the records of the case and find that the disallowance of the
simultaneous grant of these two integrated benefits was not so much founded on CCC No. 10,
11. but upon a ruling made by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Notably, with respect to the
loyalty and service cash award, respondent COA held:
As regards the payment of loyalty cash award under Sec. 7 (e), Rule X, of the CSC
Omnibus rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292 and service cash award, this
Commission holds that only one can be availed of by GSIS employees in the light of the
clear ruling of the Civil Service Commission embodied in a letter dated May 12, 1993
that since both benefits have the same rationale, which is to reward long and dedicated
service, "availment of the award can be made only under either system, whichever is
more advantageous to the employees."39
The foregoing conclusion was apparently based on the position taken by Corporate Auditor Fe R.
Munoz, who expounded thereon in a second indorsement40 dated December 14, 1993 as follows:
Service Cash Award is an incentive granted exclusively to any officer or employee of the
GSIS who has rendered at least fifteen (15) years continuous and dedicated service to the
GSIS. It entitles them to receive amounts ranging from P500.00 to P15,000.00 according
to the number of years of service, pursuant to the provisions of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA), which payments are deducted by this Office from payment of Loyalty
(Cash) Award. On the other hand, this should not be confused with the amount of Loyalty
(Cash) Award in graduated amounts of P1,200.00, P1,300.00, P1,400.00 and P1,500.00
for every year of service of GSIS executives and employees who have completed at least
ten (10) years of continuous service as authorized under Board Resolution No. 333 dated
October 29, 1992 (Annex 7), using as legal basis Section 7 (e), Rule X of the Omnibus
Civil Service Law and Rules, Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292,
providing for the cash bonus of not less than One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) per year of
service, chargeable against Agency's savings. It seems that the foregoing provision allows
for a minimum but not for a maximum amount to be given, thereby giving the agencies
enough flexibility to fix their own maximum amounts depending on the agency's savings.
It is worthy to note in this connection that when the Civil Service Commission issued
Memorandum Circular No. 42, series 1992, amending Section 7 (e), Rule X of the
Omnibus Civil Service Law and Rules, providing that the amount of cash bonus to be
given should not be more than P100.00 per year of service, the GSIS returned to the old
computation as authorized under Board Resolutions No. 192 and 187 dated May 16, 1989
and May 29, 1992 respectively (Annexes 8 and 9). Hence, the matter was referred to the
Civil Service Commission for clarification. The Commission ruled in a letter dated May
12, 1993 (Annex 10) addressed to PGM Cesar N. Sarino, that the availment of the award
can be made only under either system, whichever is more advantageous to the employees.
Petitioner GSIS did not squarely address the above finding of respondent COA or the Corporate
Auditor. Instead, it based its arguments on the general assumption that all the benefits and
allowances subject of this petition were disallowed on the basis of Section 12, R.A. No. 6758 and
its implementing rules. This is beside the point, however, as it can readily be seen that
respondent COA's ruling on the loyalty and service cash award is actually based on a purported
12. CSC declaration relative thereto. As a result, there has been no real joinder of issues as far as
these benefits are concerned.
Coming now to G.R. No. 141625, the Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error
when it held that the petition filed before the GSIS Board questioning the legality of the
deductions could proceed independently from the appeal brought by petitioner GSIS from the
COA disallowances. No error could be attributed to the appellate court's finding that there was
no identity of subject matter or issue between the COA proceedings and the retirees' claim before
the GSIS Board.
However, considering that it has already been resolved in G.R. No. 138381, we no longer find it
necessary to discuss whether GSIS can deduct the COA disallowances from the
respondents/retirees' retirement benefits. Having settled G. R. No. 138381, it is now incumbent
upon petitioner GSIS to reimburse the proper amounts to respondents/retirees. Necessarily, the
amount of said refund should be in accord with our ruling in G.R. No. 138381.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, G.R. No. 138381 is PARTLY GRANTED. The
disallowance of the adjustment in longevity pay and children's allowance and the payment of
group personnel accident insurance premiums in favor of incumbent GSIS employees is SET
ASIDE. The disallowance of the increase in housing allowance and the simultaneous grant of
loyalty and service cash award are AFFIRMED. Petitioner GSIS is further ordered to REFUND
the amounts deducted from the retirement benefits in G.R. No. 141625, corresponding to the
amount of benefits allowed in G.R. No. 138381.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing , De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C. J., Melo, Kapunan, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., on official leave.
Corona, J., took no part in the deliberation-absent.
Footnotes
1
5.4. The rates of the following allowances/fringe benefits which are not integrated into
the basic salary and which are allowed to be continued after June 30, 1989 shall be
subject to the condition that the grant of such benefits is covered by statutory authority:
5.4.1. Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) of incumbent of
the position authorized to receive the same at the highest amount legally
authorized as of June 30, 1989 for the level of his position within the particular
GOCC/GFI;
5.4.2. Uniform and Clothing Allowance at a rate as previously authorized;
13. 5.4.3. Hazard pay as authorized by law;
5.4.4. Honoraria/additional compensation for employees on detail with special
projects or inter-agency undertakings;
5.4.5. Honoraria for services rendered by researchers, experts and specialists who
are of acknowledged authorities in their fields of specialization;
5.4.6. Honoraria for lecturers and resource persons/speakers;
5.4.7. Overtime pay in accordance to Memorandum Order No. 228;
5.4.8. Clothing/laundry allowances and subsistence allowance of marine officers
and crew on board GOCCs/GFIs owned vessels and used in their operations, and
of hospital personnel who attend directly to patients and who by nature of their
duties are required to wear uniforms;
5.4.9. Quarters Allowance of officials and employees who are presently entitled to
the same;
5.4.10. Overseas, Living Quarters and other allowances presently authorized for
personnel stationed abroad;
5.4.11. Night Differential of personnel on night duty;
5.4.12. Per Diems of members of the governing Boards of GOCCs/GFIs at the
rate as prescribed in their respective charters;
5.4.13. Flying Pay of personnel undertaking serial flights;
5.4.14. Per Diems/Allowances of Chairman and Members/Staff of collegial
bodies and Committee; and,
5.4.15. Per Diems/ Allowances of officials and employees on official foreign and
local travel outside of their official station.
5.5. Other allowances/fringe benefits not likewise integrated into the basic salary
and allowed to be continued only for incumbents as of June 30, 1989 subject to
the condition that the grant of same is with appropriate authorization either from
the DBM, Office of the President or legislative issuances are as follows:
5.5.1. Rice Subsidy;
5.5.2. Sugar Subsidy;
5.5.3. Death Benefits other than those granted by the GSIS;
14. 5.5.4. Medical/dental/optical allowances/benefits;
5.5.5. Children's Allowance;
5.5.6. Special Duty Pay/Allowance;
5.5.7. Meal Subsidy;
5.5.8. Longevity Pay; and
5.5.9. Teller's Allowance.
2
Rollo in G.R. No. 138381, pp. 23-24.
3
5.6. Payment of other allowances/fringe benefits and all other forms of compensation
granted on top of basic salary, whether in cash or in kind, not mentioned in Sub-
Paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 above shall be discontinued effective November 1, 1989.
Payment made for such allowances/fringe benefits after said date shall be considered as
illegal disbursement of public funds.
4
COA Records, Volume I, pp. 70-75.
5
214 SCRA 653 (1992).
6
Id., at 664.
7
SEC 16. Repeal of Special Salary Laws and Regulations.- All laws, decrees, executive
orders, corporate charters, and other issuances or parts thereof, that exempt agencies
from the coverage of the System, or that authorize and fix position classification,
salaries, pay rates or allowances of specified positions, or groups of officials and
employees or of agencies, which are inconsistent with the System, including the proviso
under Section 2 and Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 985 are hereby repealed.
8
Supra, Note 2 at 23-28.
9
294 SCRA 152 (1998).
10
Supra, Note 2 at 31.
11
Id., at 13.
12
Alfredo D. Pineda, Daniel Go, Felino Bulandus, Felicimo J. Ferraris, Jr., Ben Hur
Porlucas, Luis Hiponia, Maria Luisa A. Fernandez, Victorina Joven, Corazon S.
Aliwanag, Silver L. Martines, Sr., Renato Perez, Lolita Caylan, Douglas Vallejo and
Leticia Almazan.
15. 13
Rollo in G. R. No. 141625, pp. 103-105.
14
Id., at 107-114.
15
Id. at 115-120.
16
Section 14.13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – The following pleadings, motions
or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this rule:
(1) Motions to Dismiss; x x x.
17
CA Records, pp. 139-145.
18
Supra, Note 13 at 121-132.
19
Id., at 145.
20
Id., at 146.
21
Id., at 31.
22
Id., at 43.
23
Id., at 110.
24
Id., at 112-113.
25
309 SCRA 177 (1999).
26
Id., at 191.
27
The pertinent provision is Section 43 (d) which states:
SEC. 43. Powers and Functions of the Board of Trustees. – The Board of Trustees
shall have the following powers and functions:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) upon the recommendation of the President and General Manager, to approve
the GSIS' organizational and administrative structures and staffing pattern, and to
establish, fix, review, revise and adjust the appropriate compensation package for
the officers and employees of the GSIS with reasonable allowances, incentives,
bonuses, privileges and other benefits as may be necessary or proper for the
effective management, operation and administration of the GSIS, which shall be
exempt from republic Act No. 6758, otherwise known as the Salary
16. Standardization Law and Republic Act No. 7430, otherwise known as the
Attrition Law;
xxx xxx xxx
28
Supra, Note 5; reiterated in Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. COA,
238 SCRA 714 (1994).
29
See Note 5 at 660.
30
Id., at 661.
31
Supra, Note 4 at 119-120.
32
Supra, Note 29.
33
Supra, Note 4 at 117-118.
34
Supra, Note 9.
35
Id., at 158.
36
95 O.G. 1 (March 1999).
37
Supra, Note 29.
38
Id., at 189, citing Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 453 (1986).
39
Supra, Note 2 at 27.
40
Supra, Note 4 at 40-43.