for the integration of COLA, AA, and other allowances G.R. No. 187257 into the standardized salaries of public employees effective November 1, 1989.15 LEONEN, J.: On August 12, 1998, this Court promulgated De Jesus v. Commission on Audit,19 which found DBM- The implementation of Republic Act No. 6758 resulted CCC No. 10 ineffective for lack of publication in the in the integration of all allowances previously Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general received, including Cost of Living Allowance and circulation.20 Thus, the circular only became effective Amelioration Allowance, into the basic standardized on March 16, 1999.21 salary. When a government entity ceases to be covered by Republic Act No. 6758, the new position classification and compensation plan must also In Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Employees Hired include all allowances previously received in the basic After July 1, 1989 v. Commission on Audit,22 this salary, in line with the principle of non-diminution of Court recognized that the ineffectivity of DBM-CCC pay. No. 10 from July 1, 1989 to March 16, 1999 created a "legal limbo" wherein the COLA and AA were "not effectively integrated into the standardized NAPOCOR was created under Commonwealth Act salaries."23 Hence, during the period of the legal No. 1204 as a government-owned and controlled limbo, affected employees would be entitled to corporation. Under the law, its National Power Board receive the two allowances. was authorized to fix the compensation of its officers and employees.5 On December 28, 2007, Abner P. Eleria, president of NECU, and Melito B. Lupanggo, president of NEWU, In 1976, a salary standardization and compensation filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Regional Trial plan for public employees, including that of Court of Quezon City, Branch 84, praying that government-owned and controlled corporations, was NAPOCOR be ordered to release the COLA and AA enacted through Presidential Decree No. 985.6 The due them.25 NECU and NEWU filed their Motion for Decree likewise provided that notwithstanding the Leave of Court to file a Petition-in-Intervention, which standardization and compensation plan, additional was granted by the trial court on March 14, incentives may be established by government-owned 2008.26 The trial court consolidated the petitions and and controlled corporations from their corporate treated them as a class suit.27 funds.7 Pursuant to the Decree, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Letter of Implementation No. 97,8 granting additional financial incentives to On May 28, 2007, the Committee issued a employees of government-owned and controlled Certification that the COLA and AA were not corporation performing critical functions, among which integrated into the salaries of NAPOCOR employees was NAPOCOR.9 The additional incentives included hired from July 1, 1989 to March 16, COLA and AA.10 1999.31 NAPOCOR "thereafter referred the matter to the Department of Budget and Management[.]" 32 On August 21, 1989, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6758, or the Compensation and Position On September 18, 2007, then Secretary of Budget Classification Act of 1989, to standardize and Management Rolando Andaya, Jr. (Secretary compensation and benefits of public employees, Andaya, Jr.) wrote a letter to NAPOCOR stating that effective July 1, 1989.11 The law applied to all the determination of whether the COLA and AA were positions, whether appointive or elective, including factually integrated rested with it since the payment of those in government-owned and controlled the allowances did not require the prior approval of corporations.12The law also provided that all the Budget and Management Secretary.33 allowances and other additional compensation not otherwise stated "shall be deemed included"13 in the NECU and NEWU again requested the release of prescribed standardized salary rates. their COLA and AA pursuant to Secretary Andaya, Jr.'s letter. NAPOCOR again referred the matter to the Existing additional compensation of any national Committee for further study. Due to the continued government official or employee paid from local funds refusal of NAPOCOR to release the allowances, of a local government unit shall be absorbed into the NECU and NEWU were constrained to file the Petition basic salary of said official or employee and shall be for Mandamus.34 paid by the National Government. In its Consolidated Comment before the trial court, the On October 2, 1989, the Department of Budget and Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of Management issued Corporate Compensation NAPOCOR, alleged that the Notice of Position Allocation and Salary Adjustment (NPASA) of employees should be examined to find out if the Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave COLA and AA were nevertheless integrated into the abuse of discretion in dismissing the Notice of Appeal salaries despite the ineffectivity of DBM-CCC No. 10. filed by the Office of the Solicitor General as the The affected employees must also show that they People's Tribune. suffered a diminution of pay as a result of its implementation. The Office of the Solicitor General Substantive likewise pointed out that the COLA and AA were not among those allowances specifically excluded in Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 and thus were Whether the COLA and AA were already deemed deemed to have been included in the standardized factually integrated into the standardized salaries salary rates.35 pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed an Omnibus I
Motion seeking to withdraw its appearance as counsel for NAPOCOR and asking for leave to intervene as Generally, the Office of the Solicitor General the People's Tribune. The Motion stated that the "represent[s] the Government of the Philippines, its position taken by NAPOCOR ran counter to the Office agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and of the Solicitor General's stand that the COLA and AA agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or were already integrated into the standardized matter requiring the services of lawyers."119 salaries.37 The exception to this rule is when it acts as the The Department of Budget and Management likewise "People's Tribune." As such, it represents the best submitted a Supplemental Comment to the trial court, interests of the State, and may take an adverse arguing that the COLA and AA were already position from the government agency under litigation. integrated into the standardized salary rates, as In Pimentel, Jr. v. Commission on Elections:120 shown in their Notice of Position Allocation and Salary Adjustment.38 It further posited that De Jesus only True, the Solicitor General is mandated to represent applied in instances where the integration of the Government, its agencies and instrumentalities allowance was by "mere legal fiction"39 and and its officials and agents in any litigation, that Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Employees Hired proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the After July 1, 1989 was similarly inapplicable since services of a lawyer. However, the Solicitor General there was already a factual integration of may, as it has in instances take a position adverse allowances.40 It likewise pointed out that the new and contrary to that of the Government on the compensation plan for NAPOCOR employees did not reasoning that it is incumbent upon him to present to include the grant of additional COLA and AA and that the court what he considers would legally uphold the the 2008 General Appropriations Act prohibited the best interest of the government although it may run use of savings for additional COLA and AA.41 It counter to a client's position.121 maintained that the test to the entitlement of additional allowances was whether there was a diminution of pay as a result of the law's II implementation and that mandamus only lied "where there is a clear legal right sought to be enforced."42 COLA and AA are already deemed integrated into the standardized salaries of the NAPOCOR employees RTC: in favor of NECU and NEWU. According to the from July 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. trial court, the determination of whether the COLA and AA had been factually integrated was already The integration of COLA into the standardized salary resolved when the NAPOCOR Committee certified rates is not repugnant to the law. Gutierrez, et al. v. that the COLA and AA of the employees from July 1, Department of Budget and Management, et 1989 to December 31, 1993 were not factually al.175 explains: integrated into their standardized salaries. COLA is not in the nature of an allowance intended to Aggrieved, the Office of the Solicitor General, acting reimburse expenses incurred by officials and as the People's Tribune filed a Petition employees of the government in the performance of for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Urgent Prayer for their official functions. It is not payment in the Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining consideration of the fulfillment of official duty. As Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction). defined, cost of living refers to "the level of prices relating to a range of everyday items" or "the cost of Procedural purchasing those goods and services which are included in an accepted standard level of consumption." Based on this premise, COLA is a benefit intended to cover increases in the cost of living. Thus, it is and should be integrated into the standardized salary rates.176
Thus, it would be incongruous to grant any alleged
back pay of COLA and AA from July 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993, when the NAPOCOR officers and employees have already received such allowances for this period. The grant would be tantamount to additional compensation, which is proscribed by Section 8, Article IX (B) of the Constitution:
SECTION 8. No elective or appointive public officer or
employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as
additional, double, or indirect compensation.
Mandamus cannot lie to compel the performance of
an unconstitutional act.177 The Regional Trial Court clearly acted in grave abuse of discretion in ordering the back payment, to the affected NAPOCOR officers and employees, the COLA and AA for the period of July 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993.
Mark Anthony Zabal, Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, and Odon S. Bandiola v. President Rodrigo Duterte, Salvador Medildea, and Eduardo Año, G.R No. 238467, February 12, 2019.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>ERROR: The requested URL could not be retrieved</TITLE>
<STYLE type="text/css"><!--BODY{background-color:#ffffff;font-family:verdana,sans-serif}PRE{font-family:sans-serif}--></STYLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H1>ERROR</H1>
<H2>The requested URL could not be retrieved</H2>
<HR noshade size="1px">
<P>
While trying to process the request:
<PRE>
TEXT http://www.scribd.com/titlecleaner?title=CONSERVA.txt HTTP/1.1
Host: www.scribd.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_4) AppleWebKit/536.30.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.5 Safari/536.30.1
Content-Length: 0
Accept: */*
Origin: http://www.scribd.com
X-CSRF-Token: 7283b4fcb0ab73c9f68b58c3ab5d19c6c13bc418
X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest
Referer: http://www.scribd.com/upload-document?archive_doc=62364135&metadata=%7B%2