Bfarea vs. Coa

8/17/2019 Bfarea vs. Coa

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court

Manila

EN BANC

BUREAU OF FISHERIES AND AQUATICRESOURCES (BFAR) EMPLOYEESUNION, REGIONAL OFFICE NO !II,CEBU CITY, Petitioner,

- versus -

COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

GR No "#$%"&Present:Puno, C.J.,Quisumbing,

Ynares-Santiago,Carpio,ustria-Martine!,Corona,Carpio Morales,!cuna,

"inga,

Chico-#a!ario,$elasco, %r.,#achura,&Re'es,(eonardo-)e Castro,*rion, JJ.Promulgated:

ugust +, /

0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0D E C I S I O NPUNO, C.J.'1n appeal are the )ecision dated pril /, 2 of respondent Commission on udit3C14 in (1-#-2-++5 upholding the disallo6ance b' the C1 (egal andd7udication 18ce 3C1-(14, Regional 18ce #o. $99, Cebu Cit' of the P+,.ood *as;et llo6ance granted b' *R to each of its emplo'ees in +555, and C1Resolution dated ugust 2, 2, den'ing petitionermplo'ees ?nion, Regional 18ce #o. $99, Cebu Cit' issued Resolution #o. +, seriesof +555 re=uesting the *R Central 18ce for a ood *as;et llo6ance. 9t 7usti@edits re=uest on the high cost of living, i.e., Athe increase in prices of petroleumproducts 6hich catapulted the cost of food commodities, has greatl' aBected theeconomic conditions and living standard of the government emplo'ees of *RRegion $99 and could hardl' sustain its need to cope up 6ith the four 34 basicneeds, i.e., food, shelter, clothing and education.D 9t also relied on the >mplo'eesSuggestions and 9ncentive 6ards S'stem 3>S9S4, pursuant to *oo; $ of >0ecutive1rder #o. 5, or the dministrative Code of +5/E, and approved b' the CivilService Commission on )ecember , +55F. "he >S9S Aincludes the granting ofincentives that 6ill help emplo'ees overcome present economic di8culties, boosttheir morale, and further commitment and dedication to public service.D Regional)irector Cora!on M. Corrales of *R Region $99 indorsed the Resolution, andMalcolm 9. Sarmiento, %r., )irector of *R recommended its approval. GonorableCesar M. )rilon, %r., ?ndersecretar' for isheries and (ivestoc; of the )epartment ofgriculture, approved the re=uest for uthorit' to Hrant a Hift Chec; or the ood*as;et llo6ance at the rate of P+,. each to the + emplo'ees of *RRegion $99, or in the total amount of P+,,F/.. 1n the strength of theapproval, Regional )irector Corrales released the allo6ance to the *R emplo'ees.1n post audit, the Commission on udit I (egal and d7udication 18ce 3C1-(14Regional 18ce #o. $99, Cebu Cit' disallo6ed the grant of ood *as;et llo6anceunder #otice of )isallo6ance #o. --++ 3+5554 dated September +5, .


2/5

9t ruled that the allo6ance had no legal basis and that it violated: a4 Sec. +23d4 ofthe Heneral ppropriations ct of +555, prohibiting the pa'ment of honoraria,allo6ances, or other forms of compensation to an' government o8cial or emplo'ee,e0cept those speci@call' authori!ed b' la6J b4 par. .2 of *udget Circular #o. +Fdated #ovember /, +55/, prohibiting the grant of food, rice, gift chec;s, or an'other form of incentivesKallo6ances, e0cept those authori!ed via dministrative

1rder b' the 18ce of the PresidentJ and c4 Sec. + of Republic ct 3R..4 #o. FE2/,or the Salar' Standardi!ation (a6 of +5/5, 6hich includes all allo6ances in thestandardi!ed salar' rates, sub7ect to certain e0ceptions.1n ebruar' F, , *R Regional 18ce #o. $99, through Regional )irectorCorrales, moved for reconsideration and pra'ed for the lifting of the disallo6ance. 9targued that the grant of ood *as;et llo6ance 6ould enhance the 6elfare andproductivit' of the emplo'ees. urther, it contended that the approval b' theGonorable )rilon, ?ndersecretar' for isheries and (ivestoc;, of the said bene@t 6asthe la6 itself 6hich vested the speci@c authorit' for its release. "he Commission onudit I (egal and d7udication 18ce 3C1-(14 Regional 18ce #o. $99, Cebu Cit'denied the motion.Petitioner appealed to the Commission on udit I (egal and d7udication 18ce

3C1-(14 #ational, Que!on Cit'. "he appeal 6as denied in a )ecision dated pril/, 2. Petitioner


3/5

Petitioner argues that the grant of the ood *as;et llo6ance does not violate Sec.+ of R.. #o. FE2/ or the Salar' Standardi!ation (a6. "his la6 6as passed tostandardi!e salar' rates among government personnel and do a6a' 6ith multipleallo6ances and other incentive pac;ages and the resulting diBerences incompensation among them. Sec. + of the la6 provides:Consolidation of llo6ances and Compensation. O ll allo6ances, e0cept for

representation and transportation allo6ancesJ clothing and laundr' allo6ancesJsubsistence allo6ance of marine o8cers and cre6 on board government vesselsand hospital personnelJ ha!ard pa'J allo6ances of foreign service personnelstationed abroadJ and such other additional compensation not other6ise speci@edherein as ma' be determined b' the )*M )epartment of *udget andManagement, shall be deemed included in the standardi!ed salar' rates hereinprescribed. Such other additional compensation, 6hether in cash or in ;ind, beingreceived b' incumbents onl' as of %ul' +, +5/5 not integrated into the standardi!edsalar' rates shall continue to be authori!ed.>0isting additional compensation of an' national government o8cial or emplo'eepaid from local funds of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the basicsalar' of said o8cial or emplo'ee and shall be paid b' the #ational Hovernment.

?nder Sec. +, as =uoted, all ;inds of allo6ances are integrated in the standardi!edsalar' rates. "he e0ceptions are:+. representation and transportation allo6ance 3R"4J. clothing and laundr' allo6anceJ. subsistence allo6ance of marine o8cers and cre6 on board governmentvesselsJ. subsistence allo6ance of hospital personnelJ2. ha!ard pa'JF. allo6ances of foreign service personnel stationed abroadJ andE. such other additional compensation not other6ise speci@ed herein as ma'be determined b' the )*M.Petitioner contends that the ood *as;et llo6ance falls under the Eth categor'

above, that of Aother additional compensation not other6ise speci@ed herein as ma'be determined b' the )*M.D

"he Court has had the occasion to interpret Sec. + of R.. #o. FE2/. 9n N-to/-*To-00o A1m/+tr-to/ 2 Comm++o/ o/ Au1t, 6e held that under the @rstsentence of Section +, the bene@ts e0cluded from the standardi!ed salar' rates arethe Nallo6ancesN or those 6hich are usuall' granted to o8cials and emplo'ees ofthe government to defra' or reimburse the e0penses incurred in the performance of their o8cial functions. "hese are the R", clothing and laundr' allo6ance,subsistence allo6ance of marine o8cers and cre6 on board government vesselsand hospital personnel, ha!ard pa', and others, as enumerated in the @rst sentenceof Section +. Le further ruled that the phrase Nand such other additionalcompensation not other6ise speci@ed herein as ma' be determined b' the )*MN isa catch-all proviso for bene@ts in the nature of allo6ances similar to thoseenumerated. 9n P4*pp/e Port+ Aut4ort. 2 Comm++o/ o/ Au1t, 6ee0plained that if these allo6ances 6ere consolidated 6ith the standardi!ed salar'rates, then government o8cials or emplo'ees 6ould be compelled to spend theirpersonal funds in attending to their duties.9n the instant case, the ood *as;et llo6ance is de@nitel' not in the nature of anallo6ance to reimburse e0penses incurred b' o8cials and emplo'ees of thegovernment in the performance of their o8cial functions. 9t is not pa'ment inconsideration of the ful@llment of o8cial dut'. 9t is a form of @nancial assistance toall o8cials and emplo'ees of *R. Petitioner itself stated that the ood *as;etllo6ance has the purpose of alleviating the economic condition of *Remplo'ees.#e0t, petitioner relies on #ational Compensation Circular #o. 25 dated September, +5/5, issued b' the )*M, 6hich is the A(ist of llo6ancesKdditionalCompensation of Hovernment 18cials and >mplo'ees 6hich shall be )eemed9ntegrated into the *asic Salar'.D "he list enumerates the follo6ingallo6ancesKadditional compensation 6hich shall be incorporated in the basic salar',hence, ma' no longer be granted to government emplo'ees:+. Cost of (iving llo6ance 3C1(4J. 9nation connected allo6anceJ


4/5

. (iving llo6anceJ. >mergenc' llo6anceJ2. dditional Compensation of Public Gealth #urses assigned to public healthnursingJF. dditional Compensation of Rural Gealth Ph'siciansJE. dditional Compensation of #urses in Malacaang ClinicJ

/. #urses llo6ance in the ir "ransportation 18ceJ5. ssignment llo6ance of School SuperintendentsJ+. Post allo6ance of Postal Service 18ce emplo'eesJ++. GonorariaKallo6ances 6hich are regularl' given e0cept the follo6ing:a. those for teaching overloadJb. in lieu of overtime pa'Jc. for emplo'ees on detail 6ith tas; forcesKspecial pro7ectsJd. researchers, e0perts and specialists 6ho are ac;no6ledged authorities in their@eld of speciali!ationJe. lecturers and resource personsJf. Municipal "reasurers deputi!ed b' the *ureau of 9nternal Revenue to collectand remit internal revenue collectionsJ and

g. >0ecutive positions in State ?niversities and Colleges @lled b' designationfrom among their facult' members.+. Subsistence llo6ance of emplo'ees e0cept those authori!ed under >1>0ecutive 1rder #o. F and uniformed personnel of the rmed orces of thePhilippines and 9ntegrated #ational PoliceJ+. (aundr' llo6ance of emplo'ees e0cept those hospitalKsanitaria personnel6ho attend directl' to patients and 6ho b' the nature of their duties are re=uired to6ear uniforms, prison guards and uniformed personnel of the rmed orces of thePhilippines and 9ntegrated #ational PoliceJ and+. 9ncentive allo6anceKfeeKpa' e0cept those authori!ed under the Heneralppropriations ct and Section of P.). #o. /E.Petitioner invo;es the rule of statutor' construction that A6hat is not included is

e0cluded.D Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. Petitioner claims that the ood*as;et llo6ance is distinct and separate from the speci@c allo6ancesKadditionalcompensation listed in the circular.gain, 6e re7ect petitioner


5/5

in connection 6ith, or in relation to, his o8cial emplo'ment. 9n the instant case, theood *as;et llo6ance 6as granted to all *R emplo'ees, 6ithout distinction. 9t6as not granted due to an' e0traordinar' contribution or e0ceptionalaccomplishment b' an emplo'ee. "he ood *as;et llo6ance 6as primaril' aneconomic monetar' assistance to the emplo'ees.(astl', 6e note, as the 18ce of the Solicitor Heneral, on behalf of respondent did,

that petitioner failed to e0haust its administrative remedies. 9t stopped see;ingremedies at the level of respondent

Bfarea vs. Coa

Documents

Transcript of Bfarea vs. Coa