Case Digest: Agra v. COA
G.R. No. 167807 : December 6, 2011
MANOLITO AGRA, EDMUNDO P. AGUILAR, IMELDA I. AMERICA, EVELYN R. CONCEPCION, DIOSDADO A. CORSIGA, PERCIVAL G. CRISOSTOMO, CESAR E. FAELDON, MA. REGINA C. FILOTEO, ZARINA O. HIPOLITO, JANICE F. MABILOG, ROBERTO MARTINEZ, JONATHAN MENDROS, NORMAN MIRASOL, EDRICK V. MOZO, LORENZO A. PENOLIAR, LOURDES QUINTERO, GLORIA GUDELIA SAMBO, DEMOSTHENES V. ERENO, RHONEIL LIBUNAO, ILUGEN P. MABANSAG, JOSEPHINE MAGBOO, MADELEINE ANN B. BAUTISTA, ULYSSES C. BIBON, ANGELINA RAMOS, EDUARDO M. SUMAYOD, DOMINGO TAMAYO, HERACLEA M. AFABLE, ANNA LISSA CREENCIA, CHONA O. DELA CRUZ, MERCY NANETTE C. IBOY, JEAN A. LUPANGO, MARIE DELA O. NA-OBRE, PERLA LUZ OCAMPO, ROUCHELLEJANE PAYURAN, ABIGAIL E. PORMENTO, THERESITA A. RIVERA, MILAGROS ROBLES, JOSEPHINE ROSILLO, ARSENIA M. SACDALAN, PRECILA TUBIO, IRENE H. VIRAY, WILFREDO O. BUCSIT, BONIFACIO DAVID, ROSARIO P. DIZON, EXEQUIEL EVALE, JR., RONALD M. MANALO, HENRIETTA A. MARAMOT, FELICISIMO U. PULA, JONAS F. SALVADOR, ERNESTO SILVANO, JR., ENRICO G. VELGADO, FEDERICO VILLAR, JR., ARNEL C. ABEN, ABDULMALIK BACARAMAN, VIRGINIA BORJA, ANTONIO CARANDANG, JR., RINA RIEL DOLINA, MANOLITO FAJARDO, ARVIN B. GARDUQUE, CAYETANO JUAREZ, MA. SHERYL LABONETE, HERCONIDA T. LAZARO, MARITESS MARTINEZ, AURELIO L. MENDOZA, ARNEL M. NOGOT, GERARDO G. POMOY, DENCIO RAMOS, CORAZON TAGUDIN, ANAFEL B. TIO, AGATONA S. ZALATAR, MARGIE EULALIA CALMA, RENEE D. MELLA, ARLIQUIN AMERICA, DEANNA B. AYSON, GERALDINE J. CALICA, CHESTER FERNANDEZ, LUISA I. HERNANDEZ, CYNTHIA E. LISONDRA, ALONA S. LLVATA, CLAIRE P. QUETUA, ROSEMARIE S. QUINTOS, RUTH S. RAMIREZ, LINO VERMUDO, JR., ROLANDO R. APOLONIO, CELIA I. ACCAD, MA. ALMA AYOS, PAMELA CASTILLO, ARNOLD DUPA, LAURENCE FELICIANO, LEANDRO P. LIBRANDO, MARILOU B. LOPEZ, AMELITA P. LUCERO, ESTERBELLE T. SIBALA, JONA ANDAL, ANDRES RATIO, MA. THERESA Q. MALLANO, DANILO P. LIGUA, JOY ABOGADO, VIRGINIA C. STA. ANA, ALBERNARD BAUTISTA, JUBANE DE PEDRO, PAUL DINDO C. DELA CRUZ, ALEJO B. INCISO, SHERWIN MADA, JESUS T. OBIDOS, JOEL B. ARELLANO, ALFREDO CABRERA, MARY LYNN E. GELLOR, JOHN JOSEPH M. MAGTULOY, MICHELLE MONTEMAYOR, RHINA ANGUE, NORBERTO BAYAGA, JR., JUSTINO CALVEZ, EDWIN CONCEPCION, ALAN JOSEPH IBE, CESAR JACINTO, JOSERITA MADRID, IRENE MARTIN, GINA T. QUINDO, RENATO SUBIJANO, NIELMA E. VERZOSA, ALL NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY REGINA FILOTEO, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS:
On July 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758 (the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989) took effect, Section 12 of which provides for the standardization of salary rates of government employees.
Pursuant to its authority to implement Republic Act No. 6758 under Section 23 thereof, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) on October 2, 1989 issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10), otherwise known as the "Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6758."
A group of NEA employees claimed that they did not receive meal, rice, and children's allowances. Thus, they filed a special civil action for mandamus against NEA and its Board of Administrators alleging violation of their right to the equal protection clause under the Constitution.
RTC rendered its Decision in their favor. RTC issued a Writ of Execution. Thereafter, the RTC issued a Notice of Garnishment against the funds of NEA with Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).
NEA questioned before the Court of Appeals the Orders of the lower court. Court of Appeals rendered a Decision declaring null and void the Resolution as well as the Order of the RTC, and ordering the implementation of a writ of execution against the funds of NEA. Thus, NEA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court.
Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals decision.
However, the resident auditor of COA did not allow the payment of rice allowance to NEA employees who were not incumbents as of June 30, 1989, under Notice of Disallowance. NEA appealed Agullana's disallowance to the COA arguing that the disallowance had no basis in law and in fact, and that the subject disbursement was anchored on a court decision that had become final and executory. The COA denied the appeal from the disallowance in a Decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the NEA employees hired after June 30, 1989 are entitled to rice allowance?
HELD: COAs resolution is sustained.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: public officers
We have defined an incumbent as "a person who is in present possession of an office; one who is legally authorized to discharge the duties of an office." There is no question that petitioners were not incumbents as of June 30, 1989. We have likewise characterized NEA as a GOCC in National Electrification Administration v. Morales. Thus, Section 5.5 quoted above, issued pursuant to the authority given to the DBM under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758, was correctly applied by the COA.
As petitioners were hired after June 30, 1989, the COA was correct in disallowing the grant of the benefit to them, as they were clearly not entitled to it. As quoted above, we have repeatedly held that under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758, the only requirements for the continuous grant of allowances and fringe benefits on top of the standardized salary rates for employees of GOCCs and GFIs are as follows: (1) the employee must be an incumbent as of July 1, 1989; and (2) the allowance or benefit was not consolidated in the standardized salary rate as prescribed by Republic Act No. 6758.
PARTLY GRANTED.
MANOLITO AGRA, EDMUNDO P. AGUILAR, IMELDA I. AMERICA, EVELYN R. CONCEPCION, DIOSDADO A. CORSIGA, PERCIVAL G. CRISOSTOMO, CESAR E. FAELDON, MA. REGINA C. FILOTEO, ZARINA O. HIPOLITO, JANICE F. MABILOG, ROBERTO MARTINEZ, JONATHAN MENDROS, NORMAN MIRASOL, EDRICK V. MOZO, LORENZO A. PENOLIAR, LOURDES QUINTERO, GLORIA GUDELIA SAMBO, DEMOSTHENES V. ERENO, RHONEIL LIBUNAO, ILUGEN P. MABANSAG, JOSEPHINE MAGBOO, MADELEINE ANN B. BAUTISTA, ULYSSES C. BIBON, ANGELINA RAMOS, EDUARDO M. SUMAYOD, DOMINGO TAMAYO, HERACLEA M. AFABLE, ANNA LISSA CREENCIA, CHONA O. DELA CRUZ, MERCY NANETTE C. IBOY, JEAN A. LUPANGO, MARIE DELA O. NA-OBRE, PERLA LUZ OCAMPO, ROUCHELLEJANE PAYURAN, ABIGAIL E. PORMENTO, THERESITA A. RIVERA, MILAGROS ROBLES, JOSEPHINE ROSILLO, ARSENIA M. SACDALAN, PRECILA TUBIO, IRENE H. VIRAY, WILFREDO O. BUCSIT, BONIFACIO DAVID, ROSARIO P. DIZON, EXEQUIEL EVALE, JR., RONALD M. MANALO, HENRIETTA A. MARAMOT, FELICISIMO U. PULA, JONAS F. SALVADOR, ERNESTO SILVANO, JR., ENRICO G. VELGADO, FEDERICO VILLAR, JR., ARNEL C. ABEN, ABDULMALIK BACARAMAN, VIRGINIA BORJA, ANTONIO CARANDANG, JR., RINA RIEL DOLINA, MANOLITO FAJARDO, ARVIN B. GARDUQUE, CAYETANO JUAREZ, MA. SHERYL LABONETE, HERCONIDA T. LAZARO, MARITESS MARTINEZ, AURELIO L. MENDOZA, ARNEL M. NOGOT, GERARDO G. POMOY, DENCIO RAMOS, CORAZON TAGUDIN, ANAFEL B. TIO, AGATONA S. ZALATAR, MARGIE EULALIA CALMA, RENEE D. MELLA, ARLIQUIN AMERICA, DEANNA B. AYSON, GERALDINE J. CALICA, CHESTER FERNANDEZ, LUISA I. HERNANDEZ, CYNTHIA E. LISONDRA, ALONA S. LLVATA, CLAIRE P. QUETUA, ROSEMARIE S. QUINTOS, RUTH S. RAMIREZ, LINO VERMUDO, JR., ROLANDO R. APOLONIO, CELIA I. ACCAD, MA. ALMA AYOS, PAMELA CASTILLO, ARNOLD DUPA, LAURENCE FELICIANO, LEANDRO P. LIBRANDO, MARILOU B. LOPEZ, AMELITA P. LUCERO, ESTERBELLE T. SIBALA, JONA ANDAL, ANDRES RATIO, MA. THERESA Q. MALLANO, DANILO P. LIGUA, JOY ABOGADO, VIRGINIA C. STA. ANA, ALBERNARD BAUTISTA, JUBANE DE PEDRO, PAUL DINDO C. DELA CRUZ, ALEJO B. INCISO, SHERWIN MADA, JESUS T. OBIDOS, JOEL B. ARELLANO, ALFREDO CABRERA, MARY LYNN E. GELLOR, JOHN JOSEPH M. MAGTULOY, MICHELLE MONTEMAYOR, RHINA ANGUE, NORBERTO BAYAGA, JR., JUSTINO CALVEZ, EDWIN CONCEPCION, ALAN JOSEPH IBE, CESAR JACINTO, JOSERITA MADRID, IRENE MARTIN, GINA T. QUINDO, RENATO SUBIJANO, NIELMA E. VERZOSA, ALL NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY REGINA FILOTEO, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS:
On July 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758 (the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989) took effect, Section 12 of which provides for the standardization of salary rates of government employees.
Pursuant to its authority to implement Republic Act No. 6758 under Section 23 thereof, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) on October 2, 1989 issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10), otherwise known as the "Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 6758."
A group of NEA employees claimed that they did not receive meal, rice, and children's allowances. Thus, they filed a special civil action for mandamus against NEA and its Board of Administrators alleging violation of their right to the equal protection clause under the Constitution.
RTC rendered its Decision in their favor. RTC issued a Writ of Execution. Thereafter, the RTC issued a Notice of Garnishment against the funds of NEA with Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).
NEA questioned before the Court of Appeals the Orders of the lower court. Court of Appeals rendered a Decision declaring null and void the Resolution as well as the Order of the RTC, and ordering the implementation of a writ of execution against the funds of NEA. Thus, NEA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court.
Court reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals decision.
However, the resident auditor of COA did not allow the payment of rice allowance to NEA employees who were not incumbents as of June 30, 1989, under Notice of Disallowance. NEA appealed Agullana's disallowance to the COA arguing that the disallowance had no basis in law and in fact, and that the subject disbursement was anchored on a court decision that had become final and executory. The COA denied the appeal from the disallowance in a Decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the NEA employees hired after June 30, 1989 are entitled to rice allowance?
HELD: COAs resolution is sustained.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: public officers
We have defined an incumbent as "a person who is in present possession of an office; one who is legally authorized to discharge the duties of an office." There is no question that petitioners were not incumbents as of June 30, 1989. We have likewise characterized NEA as a GOCC in National Electrification Administration v. Morales. Thus, Section 5.5 quoted above, issued pursuant to the authority given to the DBM under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758, was correctly applied by the COA.
As petitioners were hired after June 30, 1989, the COA was correct in disallowing the grant of the benefit to them, as they were clearly not entitled to it. As quoted above, we have repeatedly held that under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758, the only requirements for the continuous grant of allowances and fringe benefits on top of the standardized salary rates for employees of GOCCs and GFIs are as follows: (1) the employee must be an incumbent as of July 1, 1989; and (2) the allowance or benefit was not consolidated in the standardized salary rate as prescribed by Republic Act No. 6758.
PARTLY GRANTED.
