ManilaEN
BANC
REMEDIOS
T.
BLAQUERA,
ET AL.,
Petitioners,
G.
R.
No. 109406
September
11, 1998
-versus-
HON. ANGEL
C.
ALCALA,
IN HIS CAPACITY
AS
SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT
AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
AND HON.
CARLITO
R ALETA, IN HIS CAPACITY
AS THE
DIRECTOR
OF THE PHILIPPINE NUCLEAR
RESEARCH
INSTITUTE,
Respondents.
___________________________________________
BERNARDO
BALGOS,
ET AL.,
Petitioners,
G.
R.
No. 110642
September
11, 1998
-versus-
HON.
GODOFREDO N.
ALCASID, JR.,
IN HIS
OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS THE
DIRECTOR
OF OF THE
BUREAU OF
SOILS AND
WATER
MANAGEMENT,
HON. ROMEO
N.
ALCASID,
IN HIS
OFFICIAL
CAPACITY
AS THE
DIRECTOR
OF THE
BUREAU OF
ANIMAL
INDUSTRY
AND HON. PEDRO
O. OCAMPO,
IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS THE
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE
LIVESTOCK
DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL,
Respondents.
____________________________________
DIONELO
D.
IBABAO,
ET AL.,
Petitioners,
G.
R.
No. 111494
September
11, 1998
-versus-
HON. ROBERTO
SEBASTIAN,
IN HIS CAPACITY
AS SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
AND HON.
GUILLERMO
R. MORALES,
IN HIS CAPACITY
AS DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES
AND AQUATIC RESOURCES,
Respondents.
____________________________________________
JUVY
CLAVEL P.
GACULA,
Petitioners,
G.
R.
No. 112056
September
11, 1998
-versus-
HON.
CORAZON ALMA
G. DE LEON,
IN HER
CAPACITY
AS THE SECRETARY
OF THE
DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL
WELFARE
AND
DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
_________________________________
ASSOCIATION
OF
DEDICATED
EMPLOYEES
OF THE
PHILIPPINE
TOURISM AUTHORITY (ADEPT),
Petitioner,
G.
R.
No. 119597
September
11, 1998
-versus-
COMMISSION
ON AUDIT
(COA),
Respondent.
DECISION
PURISIMA,
J:
These are cases for Certiorari
and Prohibition, challenging the constitutionality and validity of
Administrative
Orders Nos. 29 and 268 on various grounds. The facts in G. R.
Nos.
109406, 110642, 111494, and 112056 are undisputed, to wit:
Petitioners are
officials
and employees of several government departments and agencies who were
paid
incentive benefits for the year 1992, pursuant to Executive Order No.
292[1]
("E.O. 292"), otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, and
the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V[2]
of E.O. 292. On January 19, 1993, then President Fidel V. Ramos
("President
Ramos") issued Administrative Order No. 29 ("A.O. 29") authorizing the
grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 in the
maximum
amount of P1,000.00[3]
and reiterating the prohibition[4]
under Section 7[5]
of Administrative Order No. 268 ("A.O. 268"), enjoining the grant of
productivity
incentive benefits without prior approval of the President. Section 4
of
A.O. 29 directed "[a]ll departments, offices and agencies which
authorized
payment of CY 1992 Productivity Incentive Bonus in excess of the amount
authorized under Section 1 hereof [are hereby directed] to immediately
cause the return/refund of the excess within a period of six months to
commence fifteen (15) days after the issuance of this Order." In
compliance
therewith, the heads of the departments or agencies of the government
concerned,
who are the herein respondents, caused the deduction from petitioners'
salaries or allowances of the amounts needed to cover the alleged
overpayments.
To prevent the respondents from making further deductions from their
salaries
or allowances, the petitioners have come before this Court to seek
relief.
In G.R. No. 119597,
the facts are different but the petition poses a common issue with the
other consolidated cases. The petitioner, Association of Dedicated
Employees
of the Philippine Tourism Authority ("ADEPT"), is an association of
employees
of the Philippine Tourism Authority ("PTA" ) who were granted
productivity
incentive bonus for calendar year 1992 pursuant to Republic Act No.
6971
("R.A. 6971"), otherwise known as the Productivity Incentives Act of
1990.
Subject bonus was, however, disallowed by the Corporate Auditor on the
ground that it was "prohibited under Administrative Order No. 29 dated
January 19, 1993."[6]
The disallowance of the bonus in question was finally brought on appeal
to the Commission on Audit (COA) which denied the appeal in its Decision[7]
of March 6, 1995, ratiocinating, thus:
"Firstly, the
provisions
of R.A. No. 6971 insofar as the coverage is concerned, refer to
business
enterprises including government owned and/or controlled corporations
performing
proprietary functions.
Section 1a of the Supplemental
Rules Implementing R.A. No. 6971 classified such coverage as:
"All business
enterprises,
with or without existing duly certified labor organizations, including
government owned and/or controlled corporations performing proprietary
functions which are established solely for business or profit and
accordingly
excluding those created, maintained or acquired in pursuance of a
policy
of the State enunciated in the Constitution, or by law and those whose
officers and employees are covered by the Civil Service. [Emphasis
supplied]
The PTrA is a GOCC created
in pursuance of a policy of the State. Section 9 of Presidential Decree
No. 189 states that "To implement the policies and program of the
Department
(Dept. of Tourism), there is hereby created a Philippine Tourism
Authority."
Likewise, Section 21 of the same decree provides that "All officials
and
employees of the Authority shall be subject to Civil Service Law, rules
and regulations, and the coverage of the Wage and Position
Classification
Office."
Furthermore, although
Supplemental Rules and Regulations implementing R.A. No. 6971 was
issued
only on December 27, 1991, the law itself is clear that it pertains to
private business enterprises whose employees are covered by the Labor
Code
of the Philippines, as mentioned in the following provisions:
"Section 5. Labor
Management
Committee that at the request of any party to the negotiation, the
National
Wages and Productivity Commission of the Department of Labor and
Employment
shall provide the necessary studies.
"Section 8. Notification.
- A business enterprise which adopts a productivity incentive program
shall
submit copies of the same to the National Wages and Productivity
Commission
and to the Bureau of Internal Revenue for their information and record."
"Section 9. Disputes
and Grievances. - Whenever disputes, grievances, or other matters
arise
from the interpretation or implementation of the productivity incentive
program may seek the assistance of the National Conciliation and
Mediation
Board of the Department of Labor and Employment for such purpose."
Therefore, considering
the foregoing, the PTrA is within the "exclusion" provision of the
Implementing
Rules of R.A. No. 6971 and so, it (PTrA) does not fall within its
coverage
as being entitled to the productivity incentive bonus under R.A. No.
6971.
Secondly,
Administrative
Order No. 29 which is the basis for the grant of the productivity
incentive
bonus/benefits for CY 1992 also expressly provides "prohibiting
payments
of similar benefits in future years unless duly authorized by the
President."
Thirdly, the
disallowance
of the Auditor, PTrA has already been resolved when this Commission
circularized
thru COA Memorandum No. 92-758 dated April 3, 1992 the Supplemental to
Rules Implementing R.A. 6971 otherwise known as the "Productivity
Incentives
Act of 1990."
Lastly, considering
the title of RA No. 6971, i.e. "An Act to encourage productivity
and maintain industrial peace by providing incentives to both labor and
capital", and its implementing rules and regulations prepared by the
Department
of Labor and Employment and the Department of Finance, this Office
concludes
that said law/regulation pertains to agencies in the private sector
whose
employees are covered by the Labor Code."
With the denial of
its appeal, petitioner found its way here via the petition in G.R. No.
119597, to seek relief from the aforesaid decision of COA.
We will first resolve
the issue on the applicability of R.A. 6971 to petitioner ADEPT in G.R.
No. 119597 before passing upon the constitutionality or validity of
Administrative
Orders 29 and 268.
Section 3 of RA 6971,
reads:
"SECTION 3. Coverage.
- This Act shall apply to all business enterprises with or without
existing
and duly recognized or certified labor organizations, including
government-owned
and controlled corporations performing proprietary functions. It shall
cover all employees and workers including casual, regular, supervisory
and managerial employees." [Emphasis ours]
Pursuant to Section 10[8]
of RA 6971, the Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Finance issued
Supplemental
Rules to Implement the said law, as follows:
"Section 1. Paragraph
(a) Section 1, Rule II of the Rules Implementing R.A. 6971, shall be
amended
to read as follows:
Coverage. These
Rules
shall apply to:
(a) All business
enterprises
with or without existing duly certified labor organizations, including
government-owned and controlled corporations performing proprietary
functions
which are established solely for business or profit or gain and
accordingly
excluding those created, maintained or acquired in pursuance of a
policy
of the state, enunciated in the Constitution or by law, and those whose
officers and employees are covered by the Civil Service. (emphasis ours)
xxx"
Petitioner contends that
the PTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation performing
proprietary
function, and therefore the Secretary of Labor and Employment and
Secretary
of Finance exceeded their authority in issuing the aforestated
Supplemental
Rules Implementing R.A. 6971.
Government-owned and
controlled corporations may perform governmental or proprietary
functions
or both, depending on the purpose for which they have been created. If
the purpose is to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary
profit,
the function is proprietary. If it is in the interest of health, safety
and for the advancement of public good and welfare, affecting the
public
in general, the function is governmental.[9]
Powers classified as "proprietary" are those intended for private
advantage
and benefit.[10]
The PTA was established
by Presidential Decree No. 189, as amended by Presidential Decree No.
564
("PD 564").
Its general purposes[11]
are:
1. To implement the
policies and programs of the Department of Tourism ("Department");
2. To develop tourist
zones;
3. To assist private
enterprises in undertaking tourism projects;
4. To operate and
maintain
tourist facilities;
5. To assure land
availability
for private investors in hotels and other tourist facilities;
6. To coordinate all
tourism project plans and operations.
Its specific functions
and powers[12]
are:
1. Planning and
development
of tourism projects
a. To assist the
Department
make a comprehensive survey of the physical and natural tourism
resources
of the Philippines; to establish the order of priority for development
of said areas; to recommend to the President the proclamation of a
tourist
zone; and to define and fix the boundaries of the zone;
b. To formulate a
development
plan for each zone;
c. To submit to the
President through the National Economic and Development Authority for
review
and approval all development plans before the same are enforced or
implemented;
d. To submit to the
President an Annual Progress Report;
e. To assist the
Department
to determine the additional capacity requirements for various tourist
facilities
and services; to prepare a ten-year Tourism Priorities Plan; to update
annually the ten year Tourism Priorities Plan.
f. To gather,
collate
and analyze statistical data and other pertinent information for the
effective
implementation of P.D. 564.
2. Acquisition and
disposition
of lands and other assets for tourist zone purposes
a. To acquire
possession
and ownership of all lands transferred to it from other government
corporations
and institutions and any land having tourism potential and earmarked in
the Tourism Priorities Plans for intensive development into a tourist
zone
or as a part thereof, subject to the approval of the President.
b. To acquire by
purchase,
by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within
and
without the tourist zones for any of the following reasons: (a)
consolidation
of lands for tourist zone development purposes, (b) prevention of land
speculation in areas declared as tourist zones, (c) acquisition of
right
of way to the zones, (d) protection of water shed areas and natural
assets
with tourism value, and (e) for any other purpose expressly authorized
under P.D. 564.
c. For the purpose
of providing land acquisition assistance to registered tourism
enterprises,
to sell, subdivide, resell, lease, sublease, rent out, or otherwise, to
said registered tourism enterprises under sufficiently soft terms for
use
specifically in the development of hotels, recreational facilities, and
other tourist services.
d. To develop
and/or
subdivide any land in its name or undertake condominium projects
thereon,
and sell subdivision lots or condominium units to private persons for
investment
purposes.
e. To take over or
transfer to a registered tourism enterprise in accordance with law any
lease on foreshore areas within a tourist zone or adjacent thereto, in
cases said areas are not being utilized in accordance with the PTA's
approved
zone development plan and wherein the lessee concerned does not agree
to
conform accordingly.
f. To arrange for
the
reclamation of any land adjacent to or adjoining a tourist zone in
coordination
with appropriate government agencies.
3. Infrastructure
development
for tourist zone purposes
a. To contract,
supervise
and pay for infrastructure works and civil works within a tourist zone
owned and operated by the PTA.
b. To coordinate
with
appropriate government agencies the development of infrastructure
requirements
supporting a tourist zone.
c. To take water
from
any public stream, river, creek, lake, spring, or waterfall and to
alter,
straighten, obstruct or increase the flow of water in streams.
4. Zone
administration
and control
a. To formulate and
implement zoning regulations.
b. To determine and
regulate the enterprises to be established within a tourist zone.
c To ensure,
through
the proper authorities concerned, the ecological preservation,
maintenance
and/or rehabilitation of the common and the public areas within a
tourist
zone and the environment thereof.
d. To identify and
recommend to the President the preservation and/or restoration of
national
monuments or preserves; to arrange for the preservation and/or
restoration
of the same with appropriate government agencies or with the private
sector
or with the owners themselves of said tourist attractions; and to
identify
and recommend to the appropriate authorities concerned the declaration
of tourist areas and attractions as national monuments and preserves.
5. Project and
investment
promotions
a. To identify,
develop,
invest in, own, manage and operate such projects as it may deem to be
vital
for recreation and rest but not sufficiently attractive economically
for
private investment.
b. To construct
hotel
buildings and other tourist facilities within a tourist zone and in
turn
lease such facilities to registered tourism enterprises for operation,
management and maintenance.
c. To organize,
finance,
invest in, manage and operate wholly-owned subsidiary corporations.
6. Direct assistance
to
registered enterprises
a. To administer
the
tax and other incentives granted to registered enterprises.
b. To evaluate,
approve
and register or reject any and all tourism projects or enterprises
established
within the tourist zones.
c. To grant medium
and long-term loans and/or re-lend any funds borrowed for the purpose
to
duly qualified registered tourism enterprises.
d. To guarantee
local
and foreign borrowings of registered enterprises.
e. To provide
equity
investments in the form of cash and/or land.
f. To extend
technical,
management and financial assistance to tourism projects.
g. To identify,
contact
and assist in negotiations of suitable partners for both local and
foreign
investors interested in investment or participation in the tourism
industry.
h. To assist
registered
enterprises and prospective investors to have their papers processed
with
dispatch by government offices.
7. Other powers and
functions
a. To engage or
retain
the services of financial, management, legal, technical, and/or project
consultants from the private or government sector.
b. To have the
power
to succeed by its corporate name.
c. To adopt, alter,
and use a corporate seal.
d. To sue and be
sued
under its corporate name.
e. To enter into
any
contracts of any kind and description.
f. To own or
possess
personal and/or real property.
g. To make, adopt
and
enforce rules and regulations to execute its powers, duties and
functions.
h. To purchase,
hold,
and alienate shares of stock or bonds of any corporation.
i. To collect fees
or charges as may be imposed under P.D. 564.
j. To contract
indebtedness
and issue bonds.
k. To fix and
collect
rentals for the lease, use or occupancy of lands, buildings, or other
property
owned or administered by PTA.
l. To do any and
all
acts and things necessary to carry out the purposes for which the PTA
is
created.
Categorized in light of
the foregoing provisions of law in point, PTA's governmental functions
include the first, third, fourth, and sixth of the aforesaid general
purposes.
The second[13]
and fifth general purposes fall under its proprietary functions.
With respect to PTA's
specific functions and powers, the first and fourth are governmental in
nature while the fifth specific functions and powers are proprietary in
character. The second, third, sixth, and seventh specific functions and
powers can be considered partly-governmental and partly-proprietary,
considering
that 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 3(a), 6(c), 6(d), 6(e), 7(h), 7(j),
and 7(k) are proprietary functions while 2(f), 3(b), 3(c), 6(a), 6(b),
6(f), 6(g), 6(h), 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d), 7(f), 7(g), and 7(l) are
governmental
functions. The specific functions and powers treated in 7(e) and 7(i)
may
be classified either as proprietary or governmental, depending on the
circumstances
under which they are exercised or performed.
The aforecited powers
and functions of PTA are predominantly governmental, principally geared
towards the development and promotion in the scenic Philippine
archipelago.
But it is irrefutable that PTA also performs proprietary functions, as
envisaged by its charter.
Reliance on the above
analysis of the functions and powers of PTA does not suffice for the
determination
of whether or not it is within the coverage of R.A. 6971. For us to
resolve
the issues raised here solely on the basis of the classification of
PTA's
powers and functions may lead to the rendition of judgment repugnant to
the legislative intent and to established doctrines, as well, such as
on
the prohibition against government workers to strike.[14]
Under R.A. 6971, the workers have the right to strike.
To ascertain whether
PTA is within the ambit of R.A. 6971, there is need to find out the
legislative
intent, and to refer to other provisions of R.A. 6971 and other
pertinent
laws, that may aid the Court in ruling on the right of officials and
employees
of PTA to receive bonuses under R.A. 6971.
Petitioner cites an
entry in the journal of the House of Representatives to buttress its
submission
that PTA is within the coverage of R.A. 6971, to wit:
"Chairman Veloso: The
intent of including government-owned and controlled corporations within
the coverage of the Act is the recognition of the principle that when
government
goes into business, it (divests) itself of its immunity from suit and
goes
down to the level of ordinary private enterprises and subjects itself
to
the ordinary laws of the land just like ordinary private enterprises.
Now,
when people work therefore in government-owned or controlled
corporations,
it is as if they are also, just like in the private sector, entitled to
all the benefits of all laws that apply to workers in the private
sector.
In my view, even including the right to organize, bargain." Veloso
(Bicameral
Conference Committee on Labor and Employment, pp. 15-16)
After a careful study,
the Court is of the view, and so holds, that contrary to petitioner's
interpretation,
the government-owned and controlled corporations Mr. Chairman Veloso
had
in mind were government-owned and controlled corporations incorporated
under the general corporation law. This is so because only workers in
private
corporations and government-owned and controlled corporations,
incorporated
under the general corporation law, have the right to bargain
(collectively).
Those in government corporations with special charter, which are
subject
to Civil Service Laws, have no right to bargain (collectively), except
where the terms and conditions of employment are not fixed by law.[15]
Their rights and duties are not comparable with those in the private
sector.
"Since the terms and
conditions of government employment are fixed by law, government
workers
cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the private sector
to
secure concessions from their employers. The principle behind labor
unionism
in private industry is that industrial peace cannot be secured through
compulsion by law. Relations between private employers and their
employees
rest on an essentially voluntary basis. Subject to the minimum
requirements
of wage laws and other labor and welfare legislation, the terms and
conditions
of employment in the unionized private sector are settled through the
process
of collective bargaining. In government employment, however, it is the
legislature and, where properly given delegated power, the
administrative
heads of government which fix the terms and conditions of employment.
And
this is effected through statutes or administrative circulars, rules,
and
regulations, not through collective bargaining agreements." (AIIiance
of
Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 124 SCRA 1)
[Emphasis
ours]
Government corporations
may be created by special charters or by incorporation under the
general
corporation law. Those created by special charters are governed by the
Civil Service Law while those incorporated under the general
corporation
law are governed by the Labor Code.[16]
The legislative intent
to place only government-owned and controlled corporations performing
proprietary
functions under the coverage of R.A. 6971 is gleanable from the other
provisions
of the law. For instance, Section 2[17]
of said law envisions "industrial peace and harmony" and "to provide
corresponding
incentives to both labor and capital;" Section 4[18]
refers to "representatives of labor and management;" Section 5[19]
mentions of "collective bargaining agent(s) of the bargaining unit(s);"
Section 6[20]
relates to "existing collective bargaining agreements," and "labor and
management;" Section 7[21]
speaks of "strike or lockout;" and Section 9[22]
purports to "seek the assistance of the National Conciliation and
Mediation
Board of the Department of Labor and Employment" and "include the
name(s)
of the voluntary arbitrators or panel of voluntary arbitrator." All the
aforecited provisions of law apply only to private corporations and
government-owned
and controlled corporations organized under the general corporation
law.
Only they have collective bargaining agents, collective bargaining
units,
collective bargaining agreements, and the right to strike or lockout.
To repeat, employees
of government corporations created by special charters have neither the
right to strike nor the right to bargain collectively, as defined in
the
Labor Code. The case of Social Security System Employees Association
indicates
the following remedy of government workers not allowed to strike or
bargain
collectively, to wit:
"Government employees
may, therefore, through their unions or associations, either petition
the
Congress for the betterment of the terms and conditions of employment
which
are within the ambit of legislation or negotiate with the appropriate
government
agencies for the improvement of those which are not fixed by law. If
there
be any unresolved grievances, the dispute may be referred to the Public
Sector Labor-Management Council for appropriate action. But employees
in
the civil service may not resort to strikes, walkouts and other
temporary
work stoppages, like workers in the private sector, to pressure the
Government
to accede to their demands." (Supra, Footnote 14, p. 698;
Emphasis
ours)
It is a rule in statutory
construction that every part of the statute must be interpreted with
reference
to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be
considered
together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general
intent
of the whole enactment.[23]
The provisions of R.A. 6971, taken together, reveal the legislative
intent
to include only government-owned and controlled corporations performing
proprietary functions within its coverage.
Every statute must
be construed and harmonized with other statutes as to form a uniform
system
of jurisprudence.[24]
We note Section 1, Rule X of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of
E.O.
292, which reads:
"Section 1. — Each
department or agency of government, whether national or local,
including
bureaus and agencies, state colleges and universities, and government
owned
and controlled corporations with original charters, shall establish its
own Department or Agency Employee Suggestions and Incentives Award
System
in accordance with these Rules and shall submit the same to the
Commission
for approval. [Emphasis ours]
It is thus evident that
PTA, being a government-owned and controlled corporation with original
charter subject to Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations,[25]
is already within the scope of an incentives award system under Section
1, Rule X of the Omnibus Rules Implementing E.O. 292 issued by the
Civil
Service Commission ["Commission"]. Since government-owned and
controlled
corporations with original charters do have an incentive award system,
Congress enacted a law that would address the same concern of officials
and employees of government-owned and controlled corporations
incorporated
under the general corporation law.
All things studiedly
considered in proper perspective, the Court finds no reversible error
in
the finding by respondent Commission that PTA is not within the purview
of R.A. 6971. As regards the promulgation of implementing rules and
regulations,
it bears stressing that the "power of administrative officials to
promulgate
rules in the implementation of the statute is necessarily limited to
what
is provided for in the legislative enactment."[26]
In the case under scrutiny, the Supplementary Rules Implementing R.A.
6971
issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment and the Secretary of
Finance
accord with the intendment and provisions of R.A. 6971. Consequently,
not
being covered by R.A. 6971, A.O. 29 applies to the petitioner.
We now tackle the
common
issue posited by the consolidated petitions on the constitutionality of
A.O. 29 and A.O. 268.
Petitioners contend
and argue that:
I. A.O. 29 AND A.O.
268 ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF E.O. 292 AND, HENCE, NULL AND
VOID.
II. A.O. 29 AND
A.O.
268 UNLAWFULLY USURP THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY GRANTED SOLELY TO THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
III. THE FORCED
REFUND
OF INCENTIVE PAY IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL IMPAIRMENT OF A CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION.
IV. ASSUMING, FOR
THE
SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY, THAT THE GRANT OF PRODUCTIVITY INCENTIVE
BENEFITS
WAS INVALID, THE SAME SHOULD BE THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS
DIRECTLY
RESPONSIBLE THEREFOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9 OF A.O. 268.
Issued by the then President
Corazon Aquino ["President Aquino"] on July 25, 1987 in the exercise of
her legislative powers under the 1987 Constitution,[27]
E.O. 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987, provided for the
following
incentive award system:
"Sec. 31. Career
and Personnel Development Plans. - Each department or agency shall
prepare a career and personnel development plan which shall be
integrated
into a national plan by the Commission. Such career and personnel
development
plans which shall include provisions on merit promotions, performance
evaluation,
in-service training, including overseas and local scholarships and
training
grants, job rotation, suggestions and incentive award systems, and such
other provisions for employees' health, welfare, counseling, recreation
and similar services.
"Sec. 35. Employee
Suggestions and Incentive Award System. - There shall be
established
a government-wide employee suggestions and incentive awards system
which
shall be administered under such rules, regulations, and standards as
maybe
promulgated by the Commission. In accordance with rules, regulations,
and
standards promulgated by the Commission, the President or the head of
each
department or agency is authorized to incur whatever necessary expenses
involved in the honorary recognition of subordinate officers and
employees
of the government who by their suggestions, inventions, superior
accomplishment,
and other personal efforts contribute to the efficiency, economy, or
other
improvement of government operations, or who perform such other
extraordinary
acts or services in the public interest in connection with, or in
relation
to, their official employment."
"Sec. 36. Personnel
Relations. - (1) It shall be the concern of the Commission to
provide
leadership and assistance in developing employee relations programs in
the department or agencies.
"(2) Every Secretary
or head of agency shall take all proper steps toward the creation of an
atmosphere conducive to good supervisor-employee relations and the
improvement
of employee morale."
Pursuant to the provision
of Section 12(2),[28]
Chapter 3, Book V of E.O. 292, the Commission adopted and prescribed
the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 which, among others,
provide:
"Sec. 1. Each
department
or agency of government, whether national or local, including bureaus
and
agencies, state colleges and universities, and government owned and
controlled
corporations with original charters, shall establish its own Department
or Agency Employee Suggestions and Incentives Award System in
accordance
with these Rules and shall submit the same to the Commission for
approval.
"Sec. 2. The System
is designed to encourage creativity, innovativeness, efficiency,
integrity
and productivity in the public service by recognizing and rewarding
officials
and employees, individually or in groups, for their suggestions,
inventions,
superior accomplishments, and other personal efforts which contribute
to
the efficiency, economy, or other improvement in government operations,
or for other extraordinary acts of services in the public mterest.
xxx
"Sec. 7. The
incentive
awards shall consist of, though not limited to, the following:
xxx
(c) Productivity
Incentive
which shall be given to an employee or group of employees who has
exceeded
their targets or has incurred incremental improvement over existing
targets."
On February 21, 1992, President
Aquino issued A.O. 268 which granted "each official and employee of the
government the productivity incentive benefits in a maximum amount
equivalent
to thirty percent (30%) of his one (1) month basic salary but in no
case
shall such amount be less than two thousand pesos (P2,000.00),"[29]
for those who have rendered at least one year of service as of December
31, 1991.[30]
Said A.O. carried the prohibition, provided in Section 7 thereof, which
reads:
"Section 7. The
productivity
incentive beneflts herein authorized shall be granted only for Calendar
Year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of agencies, including the governing
boards of government-owned or -controlled corporations and financial
institutions,
are hereby strictly prohibited from authorizing/granting productivity
incentive
benefits or other allowances of similar nature for Calendar Year 1992
and
future years pending the result of a comprehensive study being
undertaken
by the Office of the President in coordination with the Civil Service
Commission
and the Department of Budget and Management on the matter.
"The formulation of
the necessary implementing guidelines for Executive Order No. 486 dated
8 November 1991 establishing a performance-based incentive system for
government-owned
or -controlled corporations shall likewise be included in the
comprehensive
study referred to in the preceding paragraph."
On January 19, 1993, President
Ramos issued A.O. 29 which granted productivity incentive benefits to
government
employees in the maximum amount of P1,000.00[31]
for the calendar year 1992 but reiterated the proscription under
Section
7 of A.O. 268, thus:
"Section 2. The
prohibition
prescribed under Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 268 is hereby
reiterated.
Accordingly, all heads of government offices/agencies, including
government-owned
and/or controlled corporations, as well as their respective governing
boards
are hereby enjoined and prohibited from authorizing/granting
Productivity
Incentive Benefits or any and all similar forms of allowances/benefits
without prior approval and authorization via Administrative Order by
the
Office of the President. Henceforth, anyone found violating any of the
mandates in this Order, including all officials/employees and the COA
Auditor-in-Charge
of such government office/agency found to have taken part thereof,
shall
be accordingly and severely dealt with in accordance with the
applicable
provisions of existing penal laws.
"Consequently, all
administrative authorizations to grant any form of allowances/benefits
and all forms of additional compensation usually paid outside of the
prescnbed
basic salary under R.A. No. 6758, the Salary Standardization Law, that
are inconsistent with the legislated policy on the matter or are not
covered
by any legislative action are hereby revoked.
"The implementation
of Executive Order No. 486 dated November 8, 1991, as amended by
Executive
Order No. 518 dated May 29, 1992, is hereby deferred until a more
comprehensive
and equitable scheme for the grant of the benefits that can be applied
government-wide is formulated by the Department of Budget and
Management."
Petitioners theorize that
A.O. 29 and A.O. 268 violate E.O. 292 and since the latter is a law, it
prevails over executive issuances. Petitioners likewise assert that
A.O.
29 and A.O. 268 encroach upon the constitutional authority of the Civil
Service Commission to adopt measures to strengthen the merit and
rewards
system and to promulgate rules, regulations and standards governing the
incentive awards system of the civil service.
The Court is not
impressed
with petitioners' submission. A.O. 29 and A.O. 268 were issued in the
valid
exercise of presidential control over the executive departments.
In establishing a Civil
Service Commission, the 1987 Constitution delineated its function, as
follows:
"The Civil Service
Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, shall
establish
a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency,
integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It
shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human
resources
development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a
management
climate conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the
President
and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs." (Section
3, Article IX, B, 1987 Constitution)
The Commission handles
personnel matters of the government. As the central personnel agency of
the Government, it is tasked to formulate and establish a system of
incentives
and rewards for officials and employees in the public sector, alike.
The functions of the
Commission have been decentralized to the different departments,
offices,
and agencies of the government:
"Sec. 1. Declaration
of Policy. — The State shall insure and promote the Constitutional
mandate that appointments in the Civil Service shall be made only
according
to merit and fitness, that the Civil Service Commission, as the central
personnel agency of the Government shall establish a career service,
adopt
measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, and
courtesy in the civil service, strengthen the merit and rewards system,
integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and
ranks,
and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public
accountability;
that public office is a public trust and public officers and employees
must at all times be accountable to the people; and that personnel
functions
shall be decentralized, delegating the corresponding authontv to the
departments,
offices and agencies where such functions can be effectively
performed."
(Section 1, Chapter 1, Subtitle A, Title 1, E.O. 292) [Emphasis ours]
Specifically, implementation
of the Employee Suggestions and Incentive Award System has been
decentralized
to the President or to the head of each department or agency:
"Sec. 35. Employee
Suggestions and Incentive Award System. - There shall be
established
a government-wide employee suggestions and incentive awards system
which
shall be administered under such rules, and regulations, and standards
as maybe promulgated by the Commission.
"In accordance with
rules, regulations, and standards promulgated by the Commission, the
President
or the head of each department or agencies authorized to incur whatever
necessary expenses involved in the honorary recognition of subordinate
officers and employees of the government who by their suggestions,
inventions,
superior accomplishment, and other personal efforts contribute to the
efficiency,
economy, or other improvement of government operations, or who perform
such other extraordinary acts or services in the public interest in
connection
with, or in relation to, their official employment." (E.O. 292)
[Emphasis
ours]
The President is the head
of the government. Governmental power and authority are exercised and
implemented
through him. His power includes the control over executive departments:
"The president shall
have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed." (Section 17,
Article
Vlt, 1987 Constitution)
Control means "the power
of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate
officer
had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment
of the former for that of the latter."[32]
It has been held that "[t]he President can, by virtue of his power of
control,
review, modify, alter or nullify any action, or decision, of his
subordinate
in the executive departments, bureaus, or offices under him. He can
exercise
this power motu proprio without need of any appeal from any party."[33]
When the President
issued A.O. 29 limiting the amount of incentive benefits, enjoining
heads
of government agencies from granting incentive benefits without prior
approval
from him, and directing the refund of the excess over the prescribed
amount,
the President was just exercising his power of control over executive
departments.
This is decisively clear from the WHEREAS CLAUSES of A.O. 268 and A.O.
29, to wit:
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER NO. 268
"xxx
"WHEREAS, the
productivity
incentive benefits granted by the different agencies are of varying
amounts,
causing dissension/demoralization on the part of those who had received
less and those who have not yet received any such benefit, thereby
defeating
the purpose for which the same should be granted; and
"WHEREAS, there
exists
the need to regulate the grant of the productivity incentive benefits
or
other similar allowances in conformity with the policy on
standardization
of compensation pursuant to Republic Act No. 6758;
xxx"
ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDER NO. 29
"xxx
"WHEREAS, the
faithful
implementation of statutes, including the Administrative Code of 1987
and
all laws governing all forms of additional compensation and personnel
benefits
is a Constitutional prerogative vested in the President of the
Philippines
under Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution;
"WHEREAS, the
Constitutional
prerogative includes the determination of:the rates, the timing and
schedule
of payment, and final authority to commit limited resources of
government
for the payment of personnel incentives, cash awards, productivity
bonus,
and other forms of additional compensation and fringe beneflts;
"WHEREAS, some
government
agencies have overlooked said Constitutional prerogative and have
unilaterally
granted to their respective officials and employees incentive awards;
"WHEREAS, the Office
of the President issued Administrative Order No. 268, dated February
21,
1992, strictly prohibiting the grant of Productivity Incentive Bonus or
other allowances of similar nature for Calendar Year 1992 and future
years
pending the issuance of the requisite authorization by the President;
"WHEREAS,
notwithstanding
said prohibition some government offices/agencies and government-owned
and/or controlled corporations and financial institutions have granted
productivity incentive benefits in varying nomenclature and amounts
without
the proper authorization/coordination with the Office of the President;
"WHEREAS, the
unilateral
and uncoordinated grant of productivity incentive benefits gave rise to
discontentment, dissatisfaction and demoralization among government
personnel
who have received less or have not received at all such benefits;
xxx"
The President issued subject
Administrative Orders to regulate the grant of productivity incentive
benefits
and to prevent discontentment, dissatisfaction and demoralization among
government personnel by committing limited resources of government for
the equal payment of incentives and awards. The President was only
exercising
his power of control by modifying the acts of the respondents who
granted
incentive benefits to their employees without appropriate clearance
from
the Office of the President, thereby resulting in the uneven
distribution
of government resources. In the view of the President, respondents did
a mistake which had to be corrected. In so acting, the President
exercised
a constitutionally-protected prerogative:
"The President's duty
to execute the law is of constitutional origin. So, too, is his control
of all executive departments. Thus it is, that department heads are men
of his confidence. His is the power to appoint them; his, too, is the
privilege
to dismiss them at pleasure. Naturally, he controls and directs their
acts.
Implicit then is his authority to go over, confirm, modify or reverse
the
action taken by his department secretaries. In this context, it may not
be said that the President cannot rule on the correctness of a decision
of a department secretary. (Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. v. Pano, 21
SCRA
898).
Neither can it be said
that the President encroached upon the authority of the Commission on
Civil
Service to grant benefits to government personnel. A.O. 29 and A.O. 268
did not revoke the privilege of employees to receive incentive
benefits.
The same merely regulated the grant and amount thereof.
Sound management and
effective utilization of financial resources of government are
basically
executive functions,[34]
not the Commission's. Implicit is this recognition in E.O. 292, which
states:
"Sec. 35. Employee
Suggestions and Incentive Award System. - There shall be
established
a government-wide employee suggestions and incentive awards system
which
shall be administered under such rules, regulations, and standards as
maybe
promulgated by the Commission.
In accordance with
rules, regulations, and standards promulgated by the Commission, the
President
or the head of each department or agency is authorized to incur
whatever
necessary expenses involved in the honorary recognition of subordinate
officers and employees of the government who by their suggestions,
inventions,
superior accomplishment, and other personal efforts contribute to the
efficiency,
economy, or other improvement of government operations, or who perform
such other extraordinary acts or services in the public interest in
connection
with, or in relation to, their official employment." (Chapter 5,
Subtitle
A, Book V) [Emphasis ours]
Conformably, it is "the
President or the head of each department or agency who is authorized to
incur the necessary expenses involved in the honorary recognition of
subordinate
officers and employees of the government." It is not the duty of the
Commission
to fix the amount of the incentives. Such function belongs to the
President
or his duly empowered alter ego.
Anent petitioners'
contention that the forcible refund of incentive benefits is an
unconstitutional
impairment of a contractual obligation, suffice it to state that "[n]ot
all contracts entered into by the government will operate as a waiver
of
its non-suability; distinction must be made between its sovereign and
proprietary
acts (United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487)."[35]
The acts involved in this case are governmental. Besides, the Court is
in agreement with the Solicitor General that the incentive pay or
benefit
is in the nature of a bonus which is not a demandable or enforceable
obligation.
It is understood that
the Judiciary, Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit,
Commission
on Elections, and Office of the Ombudsman, which enjoy fiscal autonomy,
are not covered by the amount fixed by the President. As explained in
Bengzon
vs. Drilon (208 SCRA 133):
"As envisioned in the
Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the Judiciary, the Civil
Service
Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections, and
the
Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to
allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that
their needs require. It recognizes the power and authority to levy,
assess
and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest
rates
authorized by law for compensation and pay plans of the government and
allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed
by them in the course of the discharge of their functions.
"Fiscal autonomy
means
freedom from outside control. If the Supreme Court says it needs 100
typewriters
but DBM rules we need only 10 typewriters and sends its recommendations
to Congress without even informing us, the autonomy given by the
Constitution
becomes an empty and illusory platitude.
"The Judiciary, the
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the
independence
and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties.
The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the
independent
constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for
their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only
of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards
the
Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which
the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based. In the
interest
of comity and cooperation, the Supreme Court, Constitutional
Commissions,
and the Ombudsman have so far limited their objections to constant
reminders.
We now agree with the petitioners that this grant of autonomy should
cease
to be a meaningless provision."
Untenable is petitioners'
contention that the herein respondents be held personally liable for
the
refund in question. Absent a showing of bad faith or malice, public
officers
are not personally liable for damages resulting from the performance of
official duties.[36]
Every public official
is entitled to the presumption of good faith in the discharge of
official
duties.[37]
Absent any showing of bad faith or malice, there is likewise a
presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duties.[38]
In upholding the
constitutionality
of A.O. 268 and A.O. 29, the Court reiterates the well-entrenched
doctrine
that "in interpreting statutes, that which will avoid a finding of
unconstitutionality
is to be preferred."[39]
Considering, however,
that all the parties here acted in good faith, we cannot countenance
the
refund of subject incentive benefits for the year 1992, which amounts
the
petitioners have already received. Indeed, no indicia of bad faith can
be detected under the attendant facts and circumstances. The officials
and chiefs of offices concerned disbursed such incentive benefits in
the
honest belief that the amounts given were due to the recipients and the
latter accepted the same with gratitude, confident that they richly
deserve
such benefits.
WHEREFORE, the
petitions
in G. R. Nos. 109406, 110642, 111494, and 112056 are hereby dismissed,
and as above ratiocinated, further deductions from the salaries and
allowances
of petitioners are hereby enjoined.
In G. R. No. 119597,
the assailed Decision of respondent Commission on Audit is affirmed. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J.,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban,
Martinez and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
Regalado, J.,
on official leave.
_________________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
The applicable provisions are contained in Chapter 5, Subtitle A Title
I of Book V:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"Sec.
31. Career and Personal Development Plans. — Each department or
agency shall prepare a career and personnel development plan which
shall
be integrated into a national plan by the Commission. Such career and
development
plans which shall include provisions on merit promotions, performance
evaluation,
in-service training, including overseas and local scholarships and
training
grants, job rotation, suggestion and incentive award systems, and such
other provisions for employees' health, welfare, counseling, recreation
and similar services."
Sec.
35. Employee Suggestions and Incentive Award System. — There
shall
be established a government-wide employee suggestions and incentive
awards
system which shall be administered under such rules, regulations, and
standards
as maybe promulgated by the Commission.
In
accordance with rules, regulations, and standards promulgated by the
Commission,
the President or the head of each department or agency is authorized to
incur whatever necessary expenses involved in the honorary recognition
of subordinate officers and employees of the government who by their
suggestions,
inventions, superior accomplishment, and other personal efforts
contribute
to the efficiency, economy, or other improvements of government
operations
or who perform such other extraordinary acts or services in the public
interest in connection with, or in relation to, their official
employment."
[2]
Sec. 36. Personnel Relations. — (1) It shall be the concern of
the
Commission to provide leadership and assistance in developing employee
relations and the improvement of employee morale."
(2)
Every Secretary or head of agency shall take all proper steps toward
the
creation of an atmosphere conducive to good supervisor-employee
relations
and the improvement of employee morale."
The
applicable provisions are contained in Sections 1, 2 and 7 (c) of Rule
X:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sec.
1. — Each department or agency of government, whether national or loca,
including bureaus and agencies state colleges and universities, and
government
owned and controlled corporations with original charters, shall
establish
its own Department or Agency Employee Suggestions and Incentives Award
System in accordance with these Rules and shall submit the same to the
Commission for approval."
Sec.
2. — The System is designed to encourage creativity, innovativeness,
efficiency,
integrity and productivity in the public service by recognizing
and
rewarding officilas and employees, individually or in groups, for their
suggestions, inventions, superior accomplishments, and other personal
efforts
which contribute to the efficiency, economy, or other improvement in
government
operations, or for toher extraordinary acts of services in the public
interest.
xxx
xxx
xxx"
[3]
Sec. 7. — The incentive awards shall consist of, though not limited to,
the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxx
xxx
xxx
"(c)
Productivity Incentive which shall be given to an employee or group of
employees who has exceeded their targets or has incurred incremental
improvement
over existing targets."
"SEC.
1. All agencies of the National Government, including government-owned
and/or -controlled corporations and government financial institutions,
and local government units are hereby authorized to grant productivity
incentive benefits in the maximum amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS
(P1,000.00)
each to their permanent and full-time temporary and casual employees,
including
contractual personnel with employment in the nature of regular
employee,
who have rendered at least one (1) year of service in the Government as
of December 31, 1992."
[4]
SEC. 2. The prohibition prescribed under Section 7 of Administrative
Order
No. 268 is hereby reiterated. Accordingly, all heads of government
offices/agencies,
government-owned and/or controlled corporations, as well as their
respective
governing boards are hereby enjoined and prohibited from
authorizing/granting
Productivity Incentive Benefits or any and all similar forms of
allowances/benefits
without prior approval and authorization via Administrative Order by
the
Office of the President. Henceforth, anyone found violating any of the
mandates in this Order, including all officials/employees and the COA
Auditor-in-Charge
of such government office/agency found to have taken part thereof,
shall
be accordingly and severely dealt with in accordance with the
applicable
provisions of existing penal laws.
Consequently,
all administrative authorizations to grant any form of
allowances/benefits
and all forms of additional compensation usually paid outside of the
prescribed
basic salary under R.A. No. 6758, the Salary Standardization Law, that
are inconsistent with the legislated policy on the matter or are not
covered
by any legislative action are hereby revoked.
The
implementation of Executive Order No. 486 dated November 8, 1991, as
amended
by Executive Order No. 518 dated May 29, 1992, is hereby deferred until
a more comprehensive and equitable scheme for the grant of the benefits
that can be applied government-wide is formulated by the Department of
Budget and Management."
[5]
"SECTION 7. The productivity incentive benefits herein authorized shall
be granted only for Calendar Year 1991. Accordingly, all heads of
agencies,
including the governing boards of government-owned or -controlled
corporations
and financial institutions, are hereby strictly prohibited from
authorizing/granting
productivity incentive benefits or other allowances of similar nature
for
Calendar Year 1992 and future years pending the result of a
comprehensive
study being undertaken by the Office of the President in coordination
with
the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Budget and
Management
on the matter.
The
formulation of the necessary implementing guidelines for Executive
Order
No.486 dated 8 November 1991 establishing a performance-based incentive
system for government-owned or -controlled corporations shall likewise
be included in the comprehensive study referred to in the preceding
paragraph."
[6]
Rollo, G.R. No. 119597, p.29.
[7]
Ibid, pp. 21-23.
[8]
SECTION 10. Rule Making Power — The Secretary of Labor and
Employment
and the Secretary of Finance, after due notice and hearing, shall
jointly
promulgate and issue within six (6) months from the effectivity of this
Act such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the
provisions
hereof."
[9]
Department of Public Services and Labor Unions v. the Court of
Industrial
Realations, 1 SCRA 319.
[10]
Words and Phrases, "Proprietary Function."
[11]
Section 4, Presidential Decree No. 564.
[12]
Section 5, Presidential Decree No. 564.
[13]
The full text of the second general purpose reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"(b)
Develop tourist zones. — To promote the development
into
integrated
resort complexes of selected and well defined geographic areas with
potential
touirism value, known otherwise as 'tourist zones', wherein optimum use
of natural assets and attractions as well as existing facilities and
concentration
of efforts and limited resources of both government and private sector
may be effected and realized in order to generate foreign exchange as
well
as other tourist receipts. Such tourist zones shall consist of
substantially
undeveloped areas the ownership of which may partially or wholly
acquired
by the Authority or whose existing owners may choose to contribute
their
property into a consortium or in a new corporation in which the
Authority
shall participate, which in any case shall be under the control of the
Authority as to the manner of development to be undertaken within the
zone."
[14]
Social Security System Employees Association (SSSEA) v. Court of
Appeals,
175 SCRA 686, 696.
"Considering
that under the 1987 Constitution '[t]he civil service embrace all
branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government,
including
government-owned or -controlled corporations with original charters'
[Art.
IX (B), Sec. 2(1); see also Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 where the employees
in the civil service are denominated as government employees] and that
the SSS is one such government-controlled corporation with an original
charter, having been created under R.A. No. 1161, its employees are
part
of the civil service [NASECO v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 69870 & 70295,
November
24, 1988] and are covered by the Civil Service Commission's memorandum
prohibiting strikes."
[15]
Section 13, Executive Order No. 180.
[16]
Section 2 (1), Article IX, B. 1987 Constitution; PNOC-Energy
Development
Corporation v. Leogardo, 175 SCRA 26; National Service Corporation v.
NLRC,
168 SCRA 134.
[17]
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is the declared policy of
the
State to encourage higher levels of productivity, maintain industrial
peace
and harmony and promote the principle or shared responsibility in the
relations
between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its
just
share in ther fruits of production and the right of business
enterprises
to reasonable returns of investments and to expansion and growth, and
the
accordingly to provide corresponding incentives to both labor and
capital
for undertaking voluntary programs to ensure greater sharing by
theworkers
in the fruits of their labor."
[18]
"SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"xxx
xxx
xxx
b)
"Labor-Management Committee" refers to a negotiating body in a business
enterprise composed of the representatives of labor and management
created
to establish a productivity incentives program, and to settle disputes
arising therefrom in accordance with Section 9 hereof."
[19]
"SECTION 5. Labor-Management Committee. — a).
b)
In business enterprises with duly recognized or certified labor
organizations,
the representatives of labor shall be those designated by the
collective
bargaining agent(s) of the bargaining unit(s).
c)
In business enterprises without duly recognized or certified labor
organizations,
the representatives of labor shall be elected by at least a majority of
all rank-and-file employees who have rendered at least six (6) months
of
continuous service."
[20]
"SEC. 6. Productivity Incentives Program. — a).
b)
Productivity agreements reached by the parties as provided in this Act
shall supplement existing collective bargaining agreements.
c)
If, during the existence of the productivity incentives program or
agreement,
the employees will join or form a union, such program or agreement may,
in addition to the terms and conditions agreed upon by labor and
management,
be integrated in the collective bargaining agreement that may be
entered
into between them."
[21]
"SEC. 7. Benefits and Tax Incentives. — a).
b)
Any strike or lockout arising from any violation of the productivity
incentives
program shall suspend the effectivity thereof pending settlement of
such
strike or lockout; Provided, That the business enterprise shall not be
deemed to have forfeited tax incentives accrued prior to the date of
occurrence
of such strike or lockout, and the workers shall not be required to
reimburse
the productivity bonuses already granted to them under the incentive
program.
Likewise, bonuses which have already accrued before the strike or
lockout
shall be paid within six (6) months from their accrual.
xxx
xxx
xxx"
[22]
"SEC. 9. Dispute and Grievances. — Whenever disputes,
grievances,
or other matters arise from the interpretation or implementation of the
productivity incentives program, the labor-management committee shall
meet
to resolve the dispute, and may seek the assistance of the National
Concilaiation
and Mediation Board of the Department of Labor and Employment for such
purpose. Any dispute which remains uunresolved within twenty (20) days
from the time of its submission to the labor-management committee shall
be submitted for voluntary arbitration in line with the pertinent
provisions
of the Labor Code, as amended.
The
productivity incentives program shall include the name(s) of the
voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators previously chosen and
agreed
upon by the labor-management committee."
[23]
Paras v. Commission on Elections, 264 SCRA 54.
[24]
Cabada v. Alunan III, 260 SCRA 838.
[25]
Section 29, Presidential Decree No. 564.
[26]
Teoxon v. Member of the Board of Administrators, 33 SCRA 585.
[27]
Section 6, Article XVIII, 1987 Constitution.
[28]
"SEC. 12. Powers and Functions. — The Commission shall have the
following powers and functions:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxx
xxx
xxx
(2)
Prescribe, amend and enforce rules and regulations for carrying into
effect
the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws;
xxx
xxx
xxx"
[29]
Section 2, Administrative Order No. 268.
[30]
Section 1, Administrative Order No. 268.
[31]
Supra, footnote 3.
[32]
Mondano v. Silvosa, etc., et al., 97 Phil. 148.
[33]
Echeche v. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 584, citing Oliveros-Torre v.
Bayot,
58 SCRA 272, and Ang-Angco v. Castillo, et al., 118 Phil. 1468.
[34]
These are found in Book IV of Executive Order No. 292 whose applicable
provisions follow:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"SEC.
1 Declaration of Policy. — It is the policy of the State that
the
Department of Finance shall be primarily responsible for the sound and
efficient management of the financial resources of the Government, its
subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities." (Title II)
"SEC
1. Declaration of Policy. — The national budget shall be
formulated
and implemented as an instrument of national development reflective of
national objectives and plans; supportive of and consistent with the
socio-economic
development plans and oriented towards the achievement of explicit
objectives
and expected results to ensure that the utilization of fund and
operations
of government entities are conducted effectively; formulated within the
context of a regionalized governmental structure and within the
totality
of revenues and other receipts, expenditures and borrowings of all
levels
of government-owned or -controlled corporations."
[35]
M.H. Wylie v. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357.
[36]
Yulo v. Civil Service Commission, 219 SCRA 478, citing Mabutol v.
Pascual,
124 SCRA 867.
[37]
Mendiola v. People, 207 SCRA 85.
[38]
Fernando v. Sto. Tomas, 234 SCRA 546; Tuazon v. Court of Appeals, 212
SCRA
471.
[39]
National Economic Protectionism Association v. Ongpin, 171 SCRA 666,
citing
Paredes v. Executive Secretary, 128 SCRA 6. |