THIRD DIVISION
PHILIPPINE
RETIREMENT
AUTHORITY (PRA),
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
143784
February 5, 2003
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
JESUSITO L.
BUÑAG
AND ERLINA P. LOZADA,
Respondents. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PUNO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before the Court is a Petition
for Review on Certiorari involving alleged overpayment by the
petitioner
Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA) of certain benefits and
allowances
to its employees, particularly respondents herein. Petitioner PRA asks
the Court to resolve the legal question of whether disbursements made
by
PRA of compensation, allowances and other benefits to its employees
prior
to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6758 or the Compensation and Position
Classification
Act of 1989[1]
is subject to the review of the Department of Budget and Management.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioner PRA is a
government-owned and controlled corporation created on July 4, 1985
under
Executive Order No. 1037.[2]
PRA became operational on September 8, 1986.[3]
Private respondent Jesusito L. Buñag is the former deputy
general
manager of petitioner PRA while private respondent Erlina P. Lozada is
the incumbent department manager of petitioner PRA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As of July 1, 1989,
in addition to their basic salaries, private respondents were each
receiving
from PRA the following allowances and benefits: a) Cost of Living
Allowance
(COLA), 40% of the basic salary; b) Amelioration Allowance, 10% of the
basic salary; c) additional COLA, P300.00 a month; d) rice subsidy,
P400.00
per month; e) meal subsidy, P525.00 a month; f) children allowance,
P30.00
a month; and g) Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) in
various
amounts.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a letter dated December
29, 1992, the Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary
Edelmiro A. Amante, Sr. approved the Corporate Operating Budget of
petitioner
PRA for calendar year 1992 in the amount of P25,288,091.00. In the same
letter, the amount of P9,129,833.00 representing
unjustified/unauthorized
allowances, fringe benefits and other items was disallowed.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a letter dated February
1, 1993, PRA sought reconsideration from the Office of the President on
the disallowances, in particular, the amount of P1,324,822.00 out of
the
P9,129,833.00 disallowed disbursements representing supposed
over-provision
and payment of benefits and allowances to PRA employees. The amount of
P1,324,822.00 is itemized as follows:[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) Over-provision
of
RATA
P 193,200.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b)
Transition
Allowance.
611,454.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c)
Provision
for
Hospitalization
100,000.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
d)
Provision
for Provident Fund
Contribution
420,168.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
-------------------------chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
TOTAL:
P 1,324,822.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the President
denied the request for reconsideration in a letter dated September 23,
1993.[7]
On October 12, 1993, PRA filed a request for clarification of the order
denying the request for reconsideration.[8]
In reply thereto, the Office of the President explained in a letter
dated
November 11, 1993 that the approved Corporate Operating Budget of PRA
for
calendar year 1992 is subject to the following restrictions:[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"1. The approval refers
to expenditures/ceilings for each expenditure class and shall not be
construed
as approval of specific items of expenditure;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Salaries, wages,
allowances and benefits shall be in accordance with the approved
Position
Allocation List, pursuant to the Compensation and Position
Classification
Act of 1989 (R.A. 6758);chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Payment of other
benefits, such as bonuses, clothing, representation, transportation
allowances,
and such other allowances shall be in accordance with Sections 5.4,
5.5,
and 5.6 of Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, National
Compensation
Circular (NCC) No. 66, dated September 12 1991, and NCC No. 67, dated
January
1, 1992; and
4. All expenditures
shall be made within the limits of available funds realized by PRA from
corporate revenues."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, petitioner PRA
reduced the compensation of private respondents and stopped the payment
of RATA and other allowances to private respondents.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Feeling aggrieved, private
respondents sought the legal opinion of the Department of Budget and
Management
on the disallowance and reduction of amount of fringe benefits and
other
allowances previously received by them. On January 11, 1995, the
Department
of Budget and Management opined that "the total monthly compensation
and
allowances sought have no legal basis."[10]
The Department of Budget and Management explained:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It is worthy to note
that the salaries actually received by the concerned personnel as of
June
30, 1989 which were used as a basis in computing the allowances to be
integrated
and in determining the transition allowance to be granted were not the
basic salaries as certified and authorized by the DBM. Hence, there
appears
to be over computation of allowances to the integrated and transition
allowances
granted."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents
then elevated the matter to the Office of the President. The case was
docketed
as O.P. Case No. 95-L-6336.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On December 18, 1995,
the Office of the President reversed the ruling of the Department of
Budget
and Management and awarded to the private respondents the allowances
and
benefits claimed. It ruled that "the exemption of PRA from the
jurisdiction
of [the Department of Budget and Management], as provided under the PRA
charter, remained effective and legally impervious to the assertions by
[the Department of Budget and Management] of its authority."[11]
As no prior approval or authority is required from the Department of
Budget
and Management with respect to the compensation scheme of PRA and the
grant
of allowances by it to its employees, the Office of the President held
that disbursements made by PRA representing compensation and allowances
of PRA officials and employees prior to the effectivity of July 1, 1989
were valid. It applied the principle of "non-diminution of benefits"
embodied
in the transitory provisions of R.A No. 6758 and concluded that private
respondents are entitled to continue receiving the compensation and
benefits
previously enjoyed by them. Thus, the Office of the President directed
the Department of Budget and Management to provide enough funds to
cover
the salaries and allowances of the PRA officials and employees. The
subsequent
Motions for Reconsideration filed by the Department of Budget and
Management
and by petitioner PRA were denied by the Office of the President.cralaw:red
Consequently, petitioner
PRA filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals in accordance
with Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as amended. On December 14, 1999,
the
Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming the ruling of the Office
of the President. On June 19, 2000, it denied petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the instant petition,
PRA, through the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, argues
that
the Court of Appeals erred in applying the transitory provisions of
R.A.
No. 6758 in upholding the continued grant of compensation and
allowances
received by private respondents prior to the effectivity of said law.
PRA
maintained that these allowances and benefits were not authorized or
approved
by the Department of Budget and Management, contrary to E.O. No. 1037
(PRA
Charter) in relation to P.D No. 985[12]
and P.D. No. 1597[13].
PRA explains that prior to R.A. No. 6758, disbursements of
compensation,
allowances and other benefits to PRA employees are subject to the
review
of the Department of Budget and Management in accordance with P.D. No.
985 and P.D. No. 1597. PRA reasoned that the transitory provisions of
R.A.
No. 6758 which authorize the continued grant of allowances and benefits
received by incumbents as of the effectivity of the said law is not
applicable
as the law could not have contemplated the continued disbursement of
unauthorized
allowances and benefits. Further, PRA manifests that while E.O. No.
1037
grants the PRA Board the power to provide a compensation scheme for its
employees and fix reasonable allowances and benefits, PRA has not
approved
or acted on any matter in this respect.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents,
on the other hand, argue that PRA has the requisite power and authority
to impose and implement a compensation scheme for its employees without
need of prior approval or authority from the Department of Budget and
Management.
They cite as basis Section 6 (f) of E.O. No. 1037 which grants the PRA
Board the power to "establish and fix, review, revise and adjust the
appropriate
compensation scheme of the officers and employees of PRA with
reasonable
allowances, bonuses and other incentives." They allege that by virtue
of
this provision, prior to R.A. No. 6758, PRA was exempt from the
regulatory
authority of the Office of Compensation and Position Classification,
notwithstanding
the provisions of P.D. No. 985 and P.D. No. 1597. Moreover, private
respondents
argue that the disallowances in question were based on Department of
Budget
and Management Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10),
an issuance which was subsequently rendered ineffective by this Court
due
to its non-publication in the Official Gazette.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The proper resolution
of the case at bar involves a determination of the applicable law,
rules
and regulations governing the imposition of allowable compensation,
allowances
and monetary incentives to the employees of the PRA prior to the
effectivity
of R.A. No. 6758 and the legal effects of the subsequent passage of
R.A.
No. 6758.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This issue is not without
precedent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case of Intia,
Jr. v. Commission on Audit,[15]
the Philippine Postal Corporation (PPC) argued that by virtue of the
provisions
of its charter,[16]
PPC may unilaterally grant and/or increase the Representation and
Transportation
Allowance of its officials without the prior approval of the Department
of Budget and Management. The PPC cited Section 21 (c) of its charter
which
grants the PPC the power and authority to "fix salaries and emoluments
[of its employees] in accordance with the approved compensation
structure
of PPC." Further, the PPC argued that Section 25 of its charter exempts
the PPC "from the coverage of the rules and regulations of the
Compensation
and Position Classification Office."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In ruling against PPC,
this Court declared that the provisions of the PPC charter should be
read
in conjunction with Section 6 of P.D. No. 1597.[17]
The said section reads:
"Sec. 6. Exemption from
OCPC Rules and Regulations. Agencies, positions or groups of officials
and employees of the national government, including government-owned
and
controlled corporations, who are hereafter exempted by law from OCPC
coverage,
shall observe such guidelines and policies as may be issued by the
President
governing position classification, salary rates, levels of allowances,
project and other honoraria, overtime rates, and other forms of
compensation
and fringe benefits. Exemptions notwithstanding, agencies shall report
to the President, through the Budget Commission, on their position
classification
and compensation plans, policies, rates and other related details
following
such specifications as may be prescribed by the President."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court ruled in
Intia that contrary to PPC’s assertion, Section 6 of P.D. No. 1597
still
applies and has not been repealed expressly or impliedly. Although its
charter grants PPC the power to fix the compensation and benefits of
its
employees and exempts PPC from the coverage of the rules and
regulations
of the Compensation and Position Classification Office, by virtue of
Section
6 of P.D. No. 1597, the compensation system established by the PPC is
subject
to the review of the Department of Budget and Management. In this
respect,
the function of the Department of Budget and Management is to ensure
that
the proposed compensation scheme is consistent with applicable laws and
regulations. In reconciling the provisions of the PPC Charter and the
provisions
of P.D. No. 1597, this Court explained:[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"It should be emphasized
that the review by the DBM of any PPC resolution affecting the
compensation
structure of its personnel should not be interpreted to mean that the
DBM
can dictate upon the PPC Board of Directors and deprive the latter of
its
discretion on the matter. Rather, the DBM’s function is merely to
ensure
that the action taken by the Board of Directors complies with the
requirements
of the law, specifically that PPC’s compensation system -conforms as
closely
as possible with that provided for under R.A. No. 6758."
Similarly, under P.D.
No. 1037, PRA was granted the power and authority to "establish and
fix,
review, revise and adjust the appropriate compensation scheme of the
officers
and employees of PRA with reasonable allowances, bonuses and other
incentives
as may be recommended by the Chief Executive Officer/General Manager of
the PRA."[19]
Further, Section 13 of P.D. No. 1037 also exempts officers and
employees
of PRA from the rules and regulations of the Office of Compensation and
Position Classification.[20]
In accordance with the
ruling of this Court in Intia, we agree with petitioner PRA that these
provisions should be read together with P.D. No. 985 and P.D. No. 1597,
particularly Section 6 of P.D. No. 1597.[21]
Thus, notwithstanding exemptions from the authority of the Office of
Compensation
and Position Classification granted to PRA under its charter, PRA is
still
required to 1) observe the policies and guidelines issued by the
President
with respect to position classification, salary rates, levels of
allowances,
project and other honoraria, overtime rates, and other forms of
compensation
and fringe benefits and 2) report to the President, through the Budget
Commission, on their position classification and compensation plans,
policies,
rates and other related details following such specifications as may be
prescribed by the President.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Despite the power granted
to the Board of Directors of PRA to establish and fix a compensation
and
benefits scheme for its employees, the same is subject to the review of
the Department of Budget and Management. However, in view of the
express
powers granted to PRA under its charter, the extent of the review
authority
of the Department of Budget and Management is limited. As stated in
Intia,
the task of the Department of Budget and Management is simply to review
the compensation and benefits plan of the government agency or entity
concerned
and determine if the same complies with the prescribed policies and
guidelines
issued in this regard. The role of the Department of Budget and
Management
is supervisorial in nature, its main duty being to ascertain that the
proposed
compensation, benefits and other incentives to be given to PRA
officials
and employees adhere to the policies and guidelines issued in
accordance
with applicable laws.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rationale for the
review authority of the Department of Budget and Management is obvious.
Even prior to R.A. No. 6758, the declared policy of the national
government
is to provide "equal pay for substantially equal work and to base
differences
in pay upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and
qualification requirements of the positions."[22]
To implement this policy, P.D. No. 985 provided for the standardized
compensation
of government employees and officials, including those in
government-owned
and controlled corporations. Subsequently, P.D. No. 1597 was enacted
prescribing
the duties to be followed by agencies and offices exempt from coverage
of the rules and regulations of the Office of Compensation and Position
Classification. The intention, therefore, was to provide a compensation
standardization scheme such that notwithstanding any exemptions from
the
coverage of the Office of Compensation and Position Classification, the
exempt government entity or office is still required to observe the
policies
and guidelines issued by the President and to submit a report to the
Budget
Commission on matters concerning position classification and
compensation
plans, policies, rates and other related details. This ought to be the
interpretation if the avowed policy of compensation standardization in
government is to be given full effect. The policy of "equal pay for
substantially
equal work" will be an empty directive if government entities exempt
from
the coverage of the Office of Compensation and Position Classification
may freely impose any type of salary scheme, benefit or monetary
incentive
to its employees in any amount, without regard to the compensation plan
implemented in the other government agencies or entities. Thus, even
prior
to the passage of R.A No. 6758, consistent with the salary
standardization
laws in effect, the compensation and benefits scheme of PRA is subject
to the review of the Department of Budget and Management.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents
argue, however, that by virtue of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6758,
they
are entitled to receive the compensation and allowances previously
granted
to them as the transitory provisions in the said law allow the
continued
payment of compensation and allowances to incumbents as of July 1,
1989.
They allege that by being incumbents as of said date, the transitory
provisions
of R.A. No. 6758 should apply. The pertinent provisions are Sections 12
and 17 of R.A. No. 6758, viz:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 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 determined by the [Department of Budget and Management],
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 17. Salaries
of Incumbents. Incumbents of positions presently receiving salaries and
additional compensation/fringe benefits including those absorbed from
local
government units and other emoluments, the aggregate of which exceeds
the
standardized salary rate as herein prescribed, shall continue to
receive
such excess compensation, which shall be referred to as transition
allowance.
The transition allowance shall be reduced by the amount of salary
adjustment
that the incumbent shall receive in the future.cralaw:red
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The transitory provisions
embody the legislative intent to protect incumbents who are receiving
salaries
and allowances in excess of those granted under R.A. No. 6758 under the
principle of non-diminution of pay and consistent with the rule that
laws
should only be applied prospectively in the spirit of justice and fair
play.[23]
However, we subscribe to petitioner’s view that the foregoing
transitory
provisions do not contemplate a situation where the grant of
unauthorized
or irregular compensation and benefits would be continued or
subsequently
authorized by the passage of the law. It is a settled principle that in
construing legislative enactments, it is presumed that the legislature
never intended undesirable consequences or absurd results.[24]
Statutes must receive a sensible construction that will give effect to
the legislative intention and avoid an unjust or absurd conclusion.[25]
Consequently, despite
the passage of R.A. No. 6758 providing for the continued grant of
salaries
and benefits to incumbents as of July 1, 1989, private respondents are
not entitled to receive salaries, benefits and allowances that were
granted
without the prior review and approval of the Department of Budget and
Management.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon the effectivity
of R.A. No. 6758, it is not disputed that government-owned and
controlled
corporations are included in the Compensation and Position
Classification
System provided in R.A. No. 6758. Section 16 thereof repeals "all laws,
decrees, executive orders, corporate charters, and other issuances or
parts
thereof that exempt agencies from the coverage of the (Compensation and
Position Classification) 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."[26]
Although the applicable legal regime with respect to salary
standardization
for government-owned and controlled corporations is clear, the
resolution
of the instant controversy would not be complete without a discussion
on
the application of DBM-CCC No. 10 implementing the provisions of R.A
No.
6758, initially issued by the Department of Budget and Management and
made
effective on November 1, 1989.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It appears that one
of the grounds for the disallowance of particular items in PRA’s
Corporate
Operating Budget for calendar year 1992 relied upon by the Office of
the
President in its letters dated December 29, 1992 and November 11, 1993,
which triggered the present controversy, are the provisions of DBM-CCC
No. 10.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case of De Jesus
v. Commission on Audit,[28]
this Court held that DBM-CCC No. 10 is without legal force and effect
due
to the absence of prior publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper
of general circulation. The Court further ruled that such prior
publication
is a condition sine qua non to the effectiveness and enforceability of
DBM-CCC No. 10.[29]
As a result of its nullification, DBM-CCC No. 10 was subsequently
re-issued
in its entirety on February 15, 1999 and was published in the Official
Gazette on March 1, 1999.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the legal effect
of the nullification of DBM-CCC No. 10 and its subsequent re-issuance
and
publication, this Court, in Philippine International Trading
Corporation
v. Commission on Audit,[31]
ruled that the re-issuance and publication of DBM-CCC No. 10 does not
cure
its previous defect and hence, cannot have retroactive effect. The
Court
cited precisely the reason that publication is a condition precedent to
the effectivity of the law to inform the public of its contents before
their rights are affected by the same.[32]
Consequently, disallowances made by the Commission on Audit in the said
case that were based on DBM-CCC No. 10, prior to its re-issuance and
publication,
were nullified by this Court.cralaw:red
Although cited as basis
for the disallowance of particular benefits granted to private
respondents,
the records of the case at bar do not clearly show what particular
items
contested by private respondents are disallowed on the basis of DBM-CCC
No. 10. At any rate, for a complete resolution of the present
controversy
and to prevent any confusion or misapplication, in accordance with this
Court’s ruling in Philippine International Trading Corporation v.
Commission
on Audit,[33]
with respect to particular items of allowances or benefits that have
been
disallowed by the Office of the President based on the provisions of
DBM-CCC
No. 10 prior to its re-issuance and publication, the said items of
disallowance
cannot be given legal effect in view of the nullity of DBM-CCC No. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In sum, this Court rules
that prior to R.A. No. 6758, the compensation and benefits scheme of
petitioner
PRA is subject to the review authority of the Department of Budget and
Management. Hence, compensation, allowances and other benefits received
by PRA officials and employees without the requisite approval or
authority
of the Department of Budget and Management are unauthorized and
irregular
and this defect cannot be cured by the transitory provisions in R.A No.
6758. However, the function of the Department of Budget and Management
in this regard is simply to ensure that the proposed compensation and
benefits
scheme complies with the requirements of applicable laws, rules and
regulations.
With respect to particular items of allowances and benefits that have
been
disallowed in the Corporate Operating Budget of PRA for Calendar Year
1992,
which disallowance is based solely on particular provisions of DBM-CCC
No. 10, the said disallowances cannot be given legal effect in view of
the nullity of DBM-CCC No. 10 prior to its re-issuance and publication.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47818 is MODIFIED as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) Compensation and
allowances granted to private respondents prior to the effectivity of
R.A.
No. 6758 without the authority or approval of the Department of Budget
and Management are unauthorized and disallowed; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(b) Particular items
of disallowance of the Corporate Operating Budget of PRA for Calendar
Year
1992 representing various allowances and benefits in the amount of
P1,324,822.00
based solely on particular provisions of DBM-CCC No. 10, in view of the
nullity of DBM-CCC No. 10, are void.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Department of Budget
and Management is directed to effect the necessary adjustments in the
compensation,
allowances and other benefits of private respondents in accordance with
the foregoing pronouncements.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Dated July 1, 1989.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Creating the Philippine Retirement Park System, Providing Funds
Therefor
and for Other Purposes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
CA Rollo, pp. 103-104.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
CA Rollo, pp. 150-151.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 152.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 155.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 156.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Id. at 157-158.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, pp. 96-101.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
CA Rollo, p. 91.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
A Decree Revising the Position Classification and Compensation Systems
in the National Government and Integrating the same, dated August 22,
1976.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Further Rationalizing the System of Compensation and Position
Classification
in the National Government, dated June 11, 1978.
[14]
Rollo, p. 83 citing De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, 294 SCRA 152
(1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
306 SCRA 593 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
R.A. No. 7354 (1992).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
306 SCRA 593, 607 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Id. at 609.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Section 6 (f), P.D. No. 1037 (1985).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Section 13 of P.D. No. 1037 reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Section
13. Merit System. All officials and employees of the SYSTEM shall be
selected
and appointed on the basis of merit and fitness in accordance with a
comprehensive
and progressive merit system to be established by the SYSTEM upon its
organization.
The recruitment, transfer, promotion and dismissal of all its personnel
shall be governed by such merit system. In this connection, the
officers
and employees of the SYSTEM shall be exempt from the application of the
Civil Service Law, rules and regulations and from the rules and
regulations
of the Office of Compensation and Position Classification."
[21]
The section reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Sec.
6. Exemption from OCPC Rules and Regulations. Agencies, positions or
groups
of officials and employees of the national government, including
government-owned
and controlled corporations, who are hereafter exempted by law from
OCPC
coverage, shall observe such guidelines and policies as may be issued
by
the President governing position classification, salary rates, levels
of
allowances, project and other honoraria, overtime rates, and other
forms
of compensation and fringe benefits. Exemptions notwithstanding,
agencies
shall report to the President, through the Budget Commission, on their
position classification and compensation plans, policies, rates and
other
related details following such specifications as may be prescribed by
the
President."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Section 2, P.D. No. 985 (1976).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit,
309
SCRA 177, 185 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
N.C. Diaz, Judge Noli C. Diaz on Statutory Construction 109-111 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit,
309
SCRA 177, 191 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
Supra note 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
294 SCRA 152 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Id. at 156-157.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
95 O.G. Supp. No. 9. 1 (March, 1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
309 SCRA 177 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
Id. at 189.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |