1) The COA disallowed the disbursement of Staple Food Incentive (SFI) funds by PITC to its employees. The COA ruled the SFI was an illegal disbursement under Section 12 of the Salary Standardization Law.
2) Section 12 consolidates allowances into standardized salary rates, except for certain enumerated allowances. The Court found the SFI did not qualify as one of these allowances.
3) The Court affirmed the COA's decision, finding the SFI was a financial assistance bonus rather than an allowance reimbursing expenses from official functions. However, the employees did not have to refund the SFI they received in good faith
Original Description:
Original Title
Philippine International Trading Corp PITC vs Comm. on Audit G.R. No. 205837
1) The COA disallowed the disbursement of Staple Food Incentive (SFI) funds by PITC to its employees. The COA ruled the SFI was an illegal disbursement under Section 12 of the Salary Standardization Law.
2) Section 12 consolidates allowances into standardized salary rates, except for certain enumerated allowances. The Court found the SFI did not qualify as one of these allowances.
3) The Court affirmed the COA's decision, finding the SFI was a financial assistance bonus rather than an allowance reimbursing expenses from official functions. However, the employees did not have to refund the SFI they received in good faith
1) The COA disallowed the disbursement of Staple Food Incentive (SFI) funds by PITC to its employees. The COA ruled the SFI was an illegal disbursement under Section 12 of the Salary Standardization Law.
2) Section 12 consolidates allowances into standardized salary rates, except for certain enumerated allowances. The Court found the SFI did not qualify as one of these allowances.
3) The Court affirmed the COA's decision, finding the SFI was a financial assistance bonus rather than an allowance reimbursing expenses from official functions. However, the employees did not have to refund the SFI they received in good faith
14. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION vs.
Management, in accordance with Section 12 of RA 6758, or the
COMMISSION ON AUDIT Salary Standardization Law. G.R. No. 152688 November 19, 2003 PITC appealed to the Director, Corporate Audit Office II, who DOCTRINE: Staple Food Incentive is not a benefit within the ambit of sustained the disallowance of the SFI. PITC elevated the matter to the first sentence of Section 12 of RA 6758 because it was not the COA which affirmed the questioned disallowance because the granted to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the grant of SFI by PITC was an illegal disbursement of public funds performance of their official functions. In order that the SFI may be under Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758. allowed the requisites for the entitlement of benefits must be established. Hence, PITC filed the instant petition for certiorari.
(What I think is the pertinent Admin doctrine) It is a cardinal rule in ISSUE:
statutory construction that statutory provisions control the rules Whether the disbursement of the SFI by the COA was proper and regulations which may be issued pursuant thereto. Such rules Whether the nullity of the IRR issued by DBM affects the validity of and regulations must be consistent with and must not defeat the the statutory law purpose of the statute. The validity of R.A. No. 6758 should not be made to depend on the validity of its implementing rules. HELD: 1. YES. The resolution of the question of law in the case at bar FACTS: hinges on the interpretation of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758, which In accordance with DO 79 of the Department of Trade and Industry was the basis of the COA in denying the grant of SFI to the officers (DTI) then Secretary Jose Trinidad Pardo granted, subject to the and employees of PITC. It provides – availability of savings of the respective bureaus/offices/GOCCs, a Staple Food Incentive (SFI) in the maximum amount of 7.2k each to “Sec. 12. – Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation.- the officials and employees of DTI bureaus, attached agencies and Allowances, except for representation and transportation government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), in allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance accordance with Rule 10 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules. D.O. of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and No. 79 further provided that in case of disallowance, the employee hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign services shall refund the incentive through salary deduction. Consequently, personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional PITC released the total amount of 1.094M as SFI for the year 1998, compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined pursuant to the department order, in favor of its employees. by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, On April 29, 1999, the Resident Auditor of PITC issued a Notice of whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents as of July Suspension disallowing the grant of the SFI and requiring the PITC to 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall submit the approval of such grant by the Department of Budget and continue to be authorized.” excess compensation, which shall be referred to as transition The Court held that under the first sentence of Section 12, the allowance. The transition allowance shall be reduced by the amount benefits excluded from the standardized salary rates are the of salary adjustment that the incumbent shall receive in the future. "allowances" or those which are usually granted to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses In the instant case, the Staple Food Incentives was granted under incurred in the performance of their official functions. It further D.O. No. 79 to "help the DTI employees cope with the present ruled that the phrase "and such other additional compensation not economic difficulties, boost their morale and deepen their otherwise specified [in Section 12] as may be determined by the commitment and dedication to public service." Clearly therefore, DBM," in the first sentence of Section 12, is a "catch-all-proviso" for the SFI is a financial assistance or a bonus falling under the second benefits in the nature of "allowances" similar to those enumerated. sentence of Section 12 and not a payment in consideration of the Further reflection on the nature of subject fringe benefits indicates performance of an official duty. It is not a benefit within the ambit that all of them have one thing in common - they belong to one of the first sentence because it was not granted to defray or category of privilege called allowances which are usually granted to reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance of their official officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse functions, like representation and transportation allowances, and the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions. other benefits of similar nature. Accordingly, in order that the SFI If these allowances are consolidated with the standardized rate, may be allowed, the requisites for the entitlement of benefits falling then the government official or employee will be compelled to under the second sentence of Section 12 must be established. spend his personal funds in attending to his duties. Unfortunately, there is no evidence on record that the recipients of the SFI were incumbents when R.A. No. 6758 took effect on July 1, Entitlement to the "financial assistance" under the second sentence 1989 and that they were in fact receiving the same at the time. of Section 12, on the other hand, is conditioned upon the following Hence, no abuse of discretion was committed by COA in disallowing requisites – (1) the recipients were incumbents when RA 6758 took the disbursement of funds for the SFI of PITC. effect on July 1, 1989; (2) they were in fact, receiving the same, at the time; and (3) such additional compensation is distinct and 2. NO. There is no merit in the claim of PITC that R.A. No. 6758, separate from the specific allowances enumerated in the first particularly Section 12 thereof is void because DBM-Corporate sentence of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758. This is in relation to the Compensation Circular No. 10, its implementing rules, was nullified non-diminution of pay under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6758, which in the case of De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, for lack of states: publication. The basis of COA in disallowing the grant of SFI was Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 and not DBM-CCC No. 10. Moreover, SEC. 17. Salaries of Incumbents. – Incumbents of positions presently the nullity of DBM-CCC No. 10, will not affect the validity of R.A. No. receiving salaries and additional compensation/fringe benefits 6758. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutory including those absorbed from local government units and other provisions control the rules and regulations which may be issued emoluments, the aggregate of which exceeds the standardized pursuant thereto. Such rules and regulations must be consistent salary rate as herein prescribed, shall continue to receive such with and must not defeat the purpose of the statute. The validity of R.A. No. 6758 should not be made to depend on the validity of its implementing rules.
Notwithstanding the validity of the disallowance by the COA,
however, the officers and employees of PITC can not be obliged to refund the SFI received by them in good faith.