October 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 166508 - National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation v. Mario Abayari, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 166508 : October 2, 2009]
NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MARIO ABAYARI, MAY ALMINE, MA. VICTORIA ALPAJARO, FLORANTE AMORES, ANGELINA ANCHETA, ANGELINE ODIEM-ARANETA, CECILIA PACIBLE, MIRIAM BAJADO, EDUARDO BALAURO, EVANGELINA BALIAO, LUISA BANUA, RIZALINA BENLAYO, MARJORIE BINAG, CRESENCIA BISNAR, CARMELITA BREBONERIA, JOSELYN BUNYI, EMILIO CABAMONGAN, JR., PAZ DIVINA CABANERO, RAUL CABANILLA, LEONILA WYNDA CADA, CELSTINA CASAO, ELIZABETH CASAS, ARNULFO CATALAN, FRANCIS DE LA CHICA, JAIME CORTES, JAIME DE LA CRUZ, JHONNY CUSTODIO, MA. BELINDA DAPULA, REMEDIOS DEBUQUE, REBECCA DECARA, JOCELYN DIEGO, JAIME DUQUE, LUCIA ENRIQUEZ, MA. LUCIA ESPEROS, HELEN EVANGELISTA, CELSO FERNANDEZ, EDILBERTO SAN GABRIEL, REYNALDO SAN GABRIEL, EDMUNDO GARAIS, JENNILYN GOZADO, EVELYN GUEVARRA, MA. MAGDALENA HIDONA, VICTORINO INDEFONSO, JR., GRACE CECILLE JAVIER, MARIETA JOSE, MA. CECILIA KAPAW-AN, EVANGELINE LABAY, SENORA LUCUNSAY, MILAGROSO ALLAN LAMBAN, VIOLETA DE LEON, CHARITO LONTAYAO, REMEDIOS LOYOLA, NORA MALALUAN, ALBERTO MALIFICIADO, DENNIS MANZANO, MA. CONCEPCION MARQUEZ, REYNALDO MASILANG, MAGDALENA MENDOZA, MELCHOR NANUD, MILAGROS NEPOMUCENO, ROSEMARIE NEPOMUCENO, APOLO NISPEROS, ANNALIZA NOBRERA, EVANGELINE NUESCA, YUMINA PABLO, GLORIA PANGANIBAN, ROGELIO PAQUIZ, ROLANDO PAREDES, NORA PEDROSO, MARIA HILNA DELA PE�A VICTORIA, PE�ARADA, MELVIN PERALTA, DOROTHY PEREZ, FREDERICK MICHAEL PORTACION, ROMMEL RABACA, RODERICK REALUBIT, GWENDOLYN REMORIN, ANTONIO DE LOS REYES, NERISSA REYES, NENITA ROBRIGADO, ALLAN ROMERO, MA. ROSARIO ROMULO, LUIS DEL ROSARIO, CRISTINA ROSAS, DEXTER SALAZAR, MAGDALENA SALOMON, OLIVIA SALOMON, ELENITA SANCHEZ, ANGELINA SANTELICES, ANABELLE SANTOS, SHARLENE SANTOS, JAIME SINGH DELMASINGUN, EVELYN SO, MILAGROS SOLMIRANO, CHRISTINE TALUSIK, CYRIL ROMUADO TEJA EFREN TESORERO, PENNYLANE TIONGSON, CYPRIANO TOMINES, RONILO UMALI, MA. LOURSES VALDUAZA, MA. ANTONIA VALENZUELA, EDWIN VANGUARDIA, CARLO VEGA, ANNAMOR VELASCO, ESTEFANIA VILLANUEVA, CANDELARIA YODICO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In this Petition for Review 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation assails the August 20, 2004 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82637, which dismissed its petition for certiorari from the October 14, 20033 and December 15, 20034 Orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 138.5 The said Orders, in turn, respectively granted the issuance of a writ of execution and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 99-1209 - a case for mandamus .
The antecedents follow.
Petitioner, the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC), is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under the authority of Presidential Decree No. 1267 for the primary purpose of developing and providing a secondary market for home mortgages granted by public and/or private home-financing institutions.6 In its employ were respondents,7 mostly rank-and-file employees, who all profess as having been hired after June 30, 1989.8
On July 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758, otherwise known as The Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989, was enacted and was subsequently approved on August 21, 1989. Section 12 thereof directed that all allowances - namely representation and transportation allowance, clothing and laundry allowance, subsistence allowance, hazard pay and other allowances as may be determined by the budget department - enjoyed by covered employees should be deemed included in the standardized salary rates prescribed therein, and that the other additional compensation being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates should continue to be authorized. To implement the law, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10.9 Section 5.510 thereof excluded certain allowances and benefits from integration into the standardized basic salary but continued their grant to those who were incumbents as of June 30, 1989 and who were actually receiving the benefits as of said date. These are the allowances involved in this case.
Respondents filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC of Makati City, Branch 13811 to compel petitioner to pay them meal, rice, medical, dental, optical and children's allowances, as well as longevity pay, which allegedly were already being enjoyed by other NHMFC employees as early as July 1, 1989. In its April 27, 2001 Decision, the trial court ruled favorably and ordered petitioner to pay respondents the allowances prayed for, retroactive to the respective dates of appointment.12 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioners and respondent is ordered to pay petitioners their meal allowance, rice allowance, medical allowance, longevity pay and children's allowance retroactive to the dates of their respective appointments up to the present or for the time that they were employed by the respondent.
SO ORDERED.13
In arriving at the conclusion that respondents were entitled to the prayed-for benefits, the trial court explained, thus,
The use of the word "only" before the words July 1, 1989 in section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 appears to be the source of the dispute.
Section 12 is clear that other additional compensation being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 that are not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized. The law is prospective in effect and it does not say that such additional compensation shall not continue to be authorized for employees appointed after June 30, 1989. The use of the word "only" before the words "as of July 1, 1989" qualifies the additional compensation which can be continued. The foregoing applies to all employees whether permanent or casual.
DBM Circular No. 10, the Implementing Rules and Regulations particularly section 5.5 thereof use the word "only" for incumbents as of June 30, 1989 and by implication the same shall not apply to employees appointed after June 30, 1989. This is in effect another qualification limiting the grant of benefits to those who are incumbents as of June 30, 1989, a condition not imposed by Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 for which reason it has to be strike (sic) down.14
Petitioner timely filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals.15 In its November 21, 2001 Decision, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling.16 No appeal was taken from the decision and upon its finality,17 respondents moved for execution.18
However, the motion for execution was withdrawn when on May 12, 2002, petitioner and respondents executed a Compromise Agreement in which petitioner bound itself to comply with the decision rendered in the case, except that the payment of the allowances adjudicated in favor of respondents would be made in four installments instead. It was, likewise stipulated therein that the parties waive all claims against each other. The trial court did not take any positive action on the compromise except to note the same since the parties did not intend to novate the April 27, 2001 Decision.19 On that basis, petitioner had started paying respondents the arrears in benefits.
Conflict arose when the DBM sent a letter20 dated July 15, 2003 to NHMFC President Angelico Salud disallowing the payment of certain allowances, including those awarded by the trial court to respondents. A reading of the letter reveals that the disallowance was made in accordance with the 2002 NHMFC Corporate Operating Budget previously issued by the DBM.
To abide by the DBM's directive, petitioner then issued a memorandum stating that effective August 2003, the grant of benefits to its covered employees, including those awarded to respondents, would be curtailed pursuant to the DBM letter.21 This eventuality compelled respondents to file for the second time a motion for a writ of execution of the trial court's April 27, 2001 decision.22
In its October 14, 2003 Order,23 the trial court found merit in respondents' motion; hence, it directed the execution of the judgment. Petitioner moved for reconsideration24 but it was denied.25 On February 16, 2004, the trial court issued a Writ of Execution/Garnishment with a directive to the sheriff to tender to respondents the amount of their collective claim equivalent to P4,806,530.00 to be satisfied out of petitioners goods and chattels and if the same be not sufficient, out of its existing real property.26 Respondents then sought the garnishment of its funds under the custody of the Land Bank of the Philippines.27
Bent on preventing execution, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82637.28 In it, petitioner ascribed grave abuse of discretion to the trial court in ordering the execution of the judgment. It pointed out that the trial court disregarded the fact that the DBM's issuance amounted to a supervening event, or an occurrence that changed the situation of the parties that would make the continued payment of allowances to respondents impossible and illegal, and disregarded the DBM's exclusive authority to allow or disallow the payment of the benefits in question.29 It likewise faulted the trial court in ordering the garnishment of its funds despite the settled rule that government funds may not be garnished in the absence of an appropriation made by law.30 ???�r?bl?�
