EN BANC
KAPISANAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SAGOVERNMENT
SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM (KMG),
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
150769
August 31, 2004
-versus-
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
GUILLERMO N. CARAGUE,IN
HIS CAPACITY
AS CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
RAUL C. FLORES ,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
AND THE RESIDENT AUDITOR
OF
THE GOVERNMENT
SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
Tinga, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before the court is a Petition
for
Certiorari assailing the
decision No. 2001-068 dated May 10, 2001[1]
and resolution No. 2001-207 dated November 13, 2001[2]
of the Commission on Audit (COA) which affirmed the disallowance of,
among
others, hazard pay benefits under Republic Act No. 7305 (R.A. No.
7305)
to the Social Insurance Group (SIG) personnel of the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS).
R.A.
No. 7305, otherwise known as the “Magna Carta for Public Health
Workers,”
was enacted by Congress on January 28, 1992. Signed into law by
then
President Corazon C. Aquino on March 26, 1992, it took effect on April
17, 1992. The law aims to promote and improve the economic and
social
well-being as well as the living and working conditions of health
workers
in the public sector; to develop their skills and capabilities to make
them more responsive and better equipped to deliver health projects and
programs; and to attract the best and the brightest health workers to
join
and remain in government service.[3]
Accordingly, in addition to the basic salary of public health workers,
the law provides for hazard pay, subsistence, longevity pay, laundry
and
remote assignment allowances for them.cralaw:red
On January 25, 1993,
the Secretary of Health[4]
wrote Dr. Orlando C. Misa, Vice President and Medical Director of the
GSIS,
that the Medical Services Group personnel of the GSIS were public
health
workers under R.A. No. 7305.[5]
However, in a letter
dated January 17, 1994 written in response to a query from the
Department
of Budget and Management (DBM) whether personnel of the Medical
Department
of the GSIS and the Social Security System can avail of the benefits
under
R.A. No. 7305, the Secretary of Health[6]
stated that the said personnel cannot be classified as public health
workers
until their respective agencies have been considered as health-related
establishments as defined in the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 7305.cralaw:red
On January 5, 1996,
the Secretary of Health[7]
granted the request for payment of hazard pay, subsistence and laundry
allowances under R.A. No. 7305 of five departments of the GSIS, namely,
the Medical Services Group, the Medical Units of branch offices, the
Employees
Compensation Department, the Customer Relations and Monitoring
Department
and the Office of the Vice President-Social Insurance III.[8]
Pursuant to such grant, the GSIS Board of Trustees issued Resolution
No.
52 granting hazard pay, subsistence and laundry allowance to the
aforementioned
departments.[9]
Subsequently, in a letter
dated September 18, 1996, the Secretary of Health[10]
granted the request of the remaining units of the SIG for hazard pay
benefits
under R.A. No. 7305.[11]chanrobles virtual law library
On June 9, 1999, GSIS
Resident Auditor Ma. Cristina D. Dimagiba (Dimagiba) issued Notice of
Disallowance
No. 99-0120-XXX regarding the payment of allowances under R.A. No. 7305
for January 1998 to the SIG personnel. The retroactive
disallowance
was made in accordance with a letter dated May 5, 1999 from the DBM
stating
that employees belonging to the SIG are not considered as
“health-related
workers” and are therefore not qualified to receive hazard pay under
R.A.
No. 7305.[12]chanrobles virtual law library
Thereafter, on September
9, 1999, Dimagiba issued Notice of Disallowance No. 99-0138-ZZZ
regarding
the payment of hazard pay to the SIG personnel from January 1998 to the
present. The disallowance was based on the DBM’s letter dated May
5, 1999, the suspension of payment of hazard pay under R.A. No. 7305
pursuant
to Administrative Order No. 170 dated December 13, 1994 and DBM
Circular
Letter dated December 15, 1997.[13]
On October 29, 1999,
GSIS Chief Legal Counsel Manuel S. Crudo, Jr., on behalf of the
employees
in the SIG, requested for the reconsideration of Notice of Disallowance
No. 99-0138-ZZZ.[14]
However, Dimagiba maintained that the disallowance was proper.cralaw:red
The KMG, the recognized
employees’ union in the GSIS, appealed the disallowance of allowances
under
R.A. No. 7305 to the SIG personnel to the COA. However, on May
10,
2001, the COA rendered Decision No. 2001-068 affirming the disallowance
of allowances under R.A. No. 7305 for the SIG personnel.[15]
The KMG filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but on
November
13, 2001, the COA issued its Resolution No. 2001-207 denying the KMG’s
motion for reconsideration.[16]
On December 20, 2002,
the KMG filed the instant petition. It raises the following
issues:
I. WHETHER OR
NOT
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING
TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN GROSSLY MISAPPRECIATING AND
MISEVALUATING
THE EVIDENCE THAT RESULTED IN THE DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT OF HAZARD PAY
BENEFITS TO THE MEMBERS OF PETITIONER BELONGING TO THE SOCIAL INSURANCE
GROUP.
II. WHETHER
OR
NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING
TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN USURPING THE POWER AND
PREROGATIVE
VESTED BY RA 7305 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
III. WHETHER OR
NOT
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING
TO LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN APPLYING AND INTERPRETING THE
PROVISIONS
OF RA 7305.
IV. WHETHER OR NOT
PUBLIC
RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN SUSTAINING BASELESS AND ERRONEOUS
DIS-ALLOWANCES.
V. WHETHER OR NOT
PUBLIC
RESPONDENT COMMISSION COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN NOT APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLE
PRONOUNCED
IN ITS PRECEDENTS PERTAINING TO SIMILAR ISSUE.[17]
The Court notes that
although
the assailed decision and resolution of the COA affirmed the
disallowance
of hazard pay, subsistence and laundry allowances under R.A. No. 7305,
the KMG only questions the disallowance of hazard pay.[18]chanrobles virtual law library
The KMG contends that
the COA erroneously concluded that the GSIS management’s continued
grant
of hazard pay benefits to the SIG personnel was unjustified because the
DBM had disallowed such grant in its September 1995 letter.
According
to the petitioner, the GSIS was well within its right to grant hazard
pay
because it was so authorized by the DOH, the agency tasked to implement
RA No. 7305. Moreover, the September 18, 1996 and July 18, 1997 letters
of the Secretary of Health expressly state that the SIG personnel are
entitled
to hazard pay.[19]chanrobles virtual law library
The KMG also claims
that the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the
SIG personnel are not “health-related workers” as the term is defined
under
RA No. 7305. It insists that as employees who process numerous
medical
claims, the SIG personnel are considered employees of a health-related
establishment and are therefore entitled to receive hazard pay.
In
support of its argument, the KMG cites the Revised Implementing Rules
of
R.A. No. 7305 (Implementing Rules) which defines “health-related
establishment”
as a “health service facility or unit which performs health delivery
functions
within an agency whose legal mandate is not primarily the delivery of
health
services.” The KMG explains that their processing of numerous
medical
claims inevitably brings them into contact with infected persons,
documents
and objects, thereby exposing them to the risk of contracting
diseases.
The nature of their work thus renders them qualified to receive hazard
pay.[20]chanrobles virtual law library
It is likewise argued
by the KMG that the COA’s statement that in view of the relatively
higher
pay of GSIS employees there is no need to grant them hazard pay is
immaterial
to the of issue whether the nature of the job of the SIG personnel
entitles
them to hazard pay allowances.chanrobles virtual law library
The petitioner asserts
that in disallowing the grant of hazard pay to the SIG personnel, the
COA
usurped the powers granted by R.A. No. 7305 to the Secretary of
Health.
Under Section 35 of R.A. No. 7305, it is the Secretary of Health or the
Head of the Unit, with the approval of the Secretary of Health who
determines
who are entitled to hazard pay. Conversely, only the Secretary of
Health can determine who are not entitled thereto. Thus, the KMG
maintains, since the Secretary of Health previously declared that the
SIG
personnel are qualified to receive hazard pay under R.A. No. 7305, the
disallowance of such benefit would be proper only if such disallowance
is made by the Secretary of Health.[21]
The KMG further argues
that since they had been receiving hazard pay for several years
already,
such grant in their favor has ripened into a vested right.[22]
The COA, on the other
hand, asserts that it acted in accordance with law when it affirmed the
disallowance of payment of hazard pay to the SIG personnel.
According
to the respondent, since the SIG personnel do not render actual medical
services to the clients of GSIS, they are not health-related workers as
defined under R.A. No. 7305.[23]
It also claims that
the DOH does not have blanket authority under R.A. No. 7305 to enact
the
implementing rules and regulations thereof as the KMG erroneously
suggests.
Under Section 35 of the law, the DOH must first consult the appropriate
agencies of the Government, as well as professional and health workers’
organizations or unions before formulating the implementing rules of
R.A.
No. 7305.[24]
The COA also points
out that the certification issued by the DOH regarding the
classification
of an agency as a health-related agency for the purpose of determining
entitlement to hazard pay is effective only for the year during which
such
certification was issued.[25]chanrobles virtual law library
Finally, the COA disagrees
with the KMG’s claim that the SIG personnel’s entitlement to hazard pay
has ripened into a vested right because they have been receiving said
benefits
for several years already. It insists that hazard pay previously
received by the SIG personnel is in the nature of an allowance and is
therefore
a mere privilege which may be withdrawn.[26]chanrobles virtual law library
On October 8, 2002,
the Court issued a Resolution giving due course to the petition and
requiring
both parties to submit their respective memoranda.[27]
On November 29, 2002
and December 20, 2002 respectively, the KMG and the COA submitted their
memoranda,[28]
reiterating the arguments in their pleadings filed earlier.cralaw:red
The fundamental issues
for the Court’s resolution are interrelated. They are as follows:
(1) whether or not the SIG personnel are public health workers as
defined
by, or for purposes of, R.A. No. 7305 and (2) whether the COA committed
grave abuse of discretion in disallowing the grant of hazard pay to the
SIG personnel under the same law.cralaw:red
There is no merit in
the petition.cralaw:red
Under R.A. No. 7305,
the term “health workers” means:
x
x xall persons who are engaged in health and health-related
work, and all persons employed in all hospitals, sanitaria, health
infirmaries,
health centers, rural health units, barangay health stations, clinics
and
other health-related establishments owned and operated by the
Government
or its political subdivisions with original charters and shall include
medical, allied health professionals, administrative and support
personnel
employed regardless of their employment status.[29]
The Implementing Rules
further define “public health workers,” or persons engaged in health
and
health-related work, as follows:
1. Public
Health
Workers (PWH) — Persons engaged in health and health-related works.
These
cover employees in any of the following:
a. Any
government
entity whose primary function according to its legal mandate is the
delivery
of health services and the operation of hospitals, sanitaria, health
infirmaries,
health centers, rural health units, barangay health stations, clinics
or
other institutional forms which similarly perform health delivery
functions,
like clinical laboratories, treatment and rehabilitation centers, x-ray
facilities and other similar activities involving the rendering of
health
services to the public; andchanrobles virtual law library
b. Offices
attached
to agencies whose primary function according to their legal mandates
involves
provision, financing or regulation of health services.
Also covered are
medical
and allied health professionals, as well as administrative and support
personnel, regardless of their employment status.[30]
A careful reading of
the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 7305 and the Implementing Rules
readily shows that the nexus between a government employee’s official
functions
and the provision of health services is not as tenuous as the KMG
suggests.
To be included within the coverage of R.A. No. 7305, a government
employee
must be principally tasked to render health or health-related services.
Otherwise put, an employee performing functions not directly connected
with the delivery of health services is not a public health worker
within
the contemplation of the law.chanrobles virtual law library
The same conclusion
is reached when the principle of ejusdem generis is used to ascertain
the
meaning of the term “public health worker” under R.A. No. 7305 and its
Implementing Rules. Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where
a statute describes things of a particular class or kind accompanied by
words of a generic character, the generic word will usually be limited
to things of a similar nature with those particularly enumerated,
unless
there be something in the context of the state which would repel such
inference.[31]
Applying the principle
of ejusdem generis, the inescapable conclusion is that a mere
incidental
or slight connection between the employee’s work and the delivery of
health
or health-related services is not sufficient to make a government
employee
a public health worker within the meaning of R.A. 7305. The
employee
must be principally engaged in the delivery of health or health-related
services to be deemed a public health worker.cralaw:red
The question then arises
whether the SIG personnel are performing functions which are health or
health-related as to include them within the coverage of R.A. No. 7305.cralaw:red
The GSIS, as the administrator
of the funds for the pension and retirement funds of government
employees,[32]
is obviously not a health or health-related establishment.
Therefore,
it must be established that the SIG is an office in the GSIS rendering
health or health-related services for the SIG personnel to qualify as
public
health workers under R.A. No. 7305.cralaw:red
In this regard, the
Implementing Rules define a “health-related establishment” as a health
service facility or unit which performs health service delivery
functions
within an agency whose legal mandate is not primarily the delivery of
health
services. Health-related establishments include clinics and medical
departments
of government corporations, medical corps and hospitals of the Armed
Forces
of the Philippines (AFP), and the specific health service section,
division
or bureau of a government agency not primarily engaged in health
services.[33]
The record reveals that
the functions of the SIG personnel are not principally related to
health.
The SIG personnel perform tasks for the processing of GSIS members’
claims
for life insurance, retirement, disability and survivorship benefits.[34]
These functions are not similar to those of persons working in
health-related
establishments such as clinics or medical departments of government
corporations,
medical corps and hospitals of the AFP, and the specific health service
units of government agencies. Undoubtedly, the SIG
personnel
cannot be considered public health workers under R.A. No. 7305.cralaw:red
Significantly, the classes
of persons considered as public health workers under R.A. No. 7305 and
the Implementing Rules are those persons required to render primarily
health
or health-related services, viz:chanrobles virtual law library
(1)
employees
of government agencies primarily engaged in the delivery of
health
services;[35]chanrobles virtual law library
(2)
employees
of government agencies primarily engaged in the operation of hospitals,
sanitaria, health infirmaries, health centers, rural health units,
barangay
health stations, clinics or other similar institutions;[36]chanrobles virtual law library
(3) employees of
government
agencies primarily engaged in the operation of clinical laboratories,
treatment
and rehabilitation centers, x-ray facilities and other similar
facilities;[37]chanrobles virtual law library
(4) employees in
offices
attached to government agencies principally involved in financing or
regulation
of health services;[38]
(5) medical
professionals,
allied health professionals, administrative and support personnel
in the aforementioned agencies or offices;[39]
and
(6) employees
rendering
health or health-related work in offices attached to an agency which is
not principally engaged in health or health-related services.[40]
Employees in the
sixth
category are deemed employees of “health-related establishments,” that
is, facilities or units engaged in the delivery of health services,
although
the agencies to which such facilities or units are attached are not
primarily
involved in health or health-related services. Under the
Implementing
Rules, such health-related establishments include clinics or medical
departments
of government corporations, medical corps and hospitals of the Armed
Forces
of the Philippines, and the specific health service section, division,
bureau or unit of a government agency.[41]
Even assuming arguendo
that the SIG personnel may be considered public health workers, they
would
still not be qualified to receive hazard pay benefits because the
requirements
for the grant of hazard pay under R.A. 7305 are duly
circumscribed.
Section 21 thereof states:
Hazard
Allowance.
— Public health workers in hospitals, sanitaria, rural health units,
main
health centers, health infirmaries, barangay health stations, clinics
and
other health-related establishments located in difficult areas,
strife-torn
or embattled areas, distressed or isolated stations, prisons (sic)
camps,
mental hospitals, radiation-exposed clinics, laboratories or
disease-infested
areas or in areas declared under state of calamity or emergency for the
duration thereof which expose them to great danger, contagion,
radiation,
volcanic activity/eruption, occupational risks or perils to life as
determined
by the Secretary of Health or the Head of the unit with the approval of
the Secretary of Health, shall be compensated hazard allowances
equivalent
to at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the monthly basic salary of
health
workers receiving salary grade 19 and below, and five percent (5%) for
health workers with salary grade 20 and above. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear that only
public
health workers working in establishments specifically mentioned in
Section
21 are entitled to receive hazard pay benefits.
The Implementing Rules
provide additional guidelines regarding entitlement to hazard pay
benefits,
including proof that the work of the public health worker
concerned
exposes him or her to specific kinds of hazard for at least fifty
percent
(50%) of his or her working hours,[42]
and outlines the procedure for the determination of a public health
worker’s
entitlement to hazard pay.[43]chanrobles virtual law library
It cannot therefore
be gainsaid that under R.A. 7305 and its Implementing Rules, the nature
of the working conditions of the SIG personnel do not justify their
entitlement
to hazard pay under Section 21 thereof. Even if their work were
primarily
health-related, they do not stay in contaminated, strife-torn or
isolated
areas, and the risks brought about by their work environment to their
health
are not so grave as to warrant their entitlement to such benefit.cralaw:red
It is also worthy of
note that the letters of the Secretary of Health dated January 5, 1996[44]
and September 18, 1996[45]
do not contain any explicit declaration that the SIG personnel are
working
in any of the areas mentioned in Section 21 of R.A. No. 7305 or that
their
working conditions expose them to health hazards to justify the grant
of
hazard pay in their favor.cralaw:red
There is likewise no
merit in the KMG’s contention that the COA gravely abused its
discretion
in disallowing the grant of hazard pay to the SIG personnel because it
is the DOH which is mandated by law to make the determination as to who
are entitled to the benefits under R.A. No. 7305.cralaw:red
The DOH is the unit
of the executive branch of government tasked to administer all laws,
rules
and regulations in the field of health.[46]
In addition, it is the DOH which is specifically tasked under Section
35
of R.A. No. 7305 to consult the appropriate government agencies and
professional
and health workers’ organizations or unions, and thereafter, to
formulate
and prepare the implementing rules and regulations of R.A. No. 7305.[47]
Although it is the DOH
which principally determines who are specifically entitled to benefits
under R.A. No. 7305, its authority to make such determination must be
in
accordance with the definition of terms and standards set in the law
and
its Implementing Rules. Moreover, there is nothing in the law
which
precludes review of the DOH’s determinations by other government
agencies
such as the DBM and the COA in the performance of their respective
functions.
In fact, in accordance with Section 35 of R.A. 7305, the
Secretary
of Health collaborated with other government agencies and health
workers’
organizations in drafting the Implementing Rules which lay down, among
others, the guidelines and procedure for the grant of hazard pay to
public
health workers. Also, mindful of the objectives of R.A. No. 7305,
the DBM had earlier requested for a moratorium on the DOH’s approval of
requests made by agencies for certifications that their personnel are
covered
by R.A. No. 7305 due to “serious lapses” in the issuance of such
certifications.[48]chanrobles virtual law library
The DBM is mandated
by law to assist the Chief Executive in the preparation, execution and
control of the national budget.[49]
It was therefore merely performing its duty to enforce and control the
use of government funds when it evaluated the grant of hazard pay to
the
SIG personnel and discovered that such grant was not justified under
R.A.
No. 7305.cralaw:red
The COA, on the other
hand, is vested by the Constitution with the power and duty to examine,
audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts
of,
and expenditures or uses of funds or property owned or held in trust
by,
or pertaining to government owned and controlled corporations with
original
charters such as the GSIS, on a post-audit basis.[50]
It is mandated to determine whether government entities comply with
laws
and regulations in disbursing government funds, and to disallow illegal
or irregular disbursements of government funds.[51]
Thus, the COA acted
pursuant to its duty and within the bounds of its jurisdiction in
reviewing
the grant of hazard pay to the SIG personnel under R.A. No. 7305 and
subsequently
disallowing the same for being violative of the provisions
thereof.cralaw:red
Considering all the
foregoing and under any reasonable yeardstick, no grave abuse of
discretion
can be ascribed to the COA in disallowing the grant of hazard pay
benefits
to the SIG personnel. Clearly, under R.A. No. 7305 the SIG
personnel are not public health workers. Clearly also under the
same
law, they are not entitled to hazard pay in any case.cralaw:red
Furthermore, the KMG
cannot invoke the previous determinations by the DOH that the SIG
personnel
are considered public health workers under R.A. No. 7305 to justify
their
entitlement to hazard pay under that law. The Court has
previously
held that practice, no matter how long continued, cannot give rise to
any
vested right if it is contrary to law.[52]
The erroneous application and enforcement of the law by public officers
does not estop the Government from making a subsequent correction of
such
errors.[53]
Where the law expressly limits the grant of certain benefits to a
specified
class of persons, such limitation must be enforced even if it
prejudices
certain parties due to a previous mistake committed by public officials
in granting such benefit.[54]chanrobles virtual law library
The Court however finds
that the DOH and GSIS officials concerned who granted hazard pay under
R.A. No. 7305 to the SIG personnel acted in good faith, in the honest
belief
that there was legal basis for such grant. The SIG personnel in
turn
accepted the hazard pay benefits likewise believing that they were
entitled
to such benefit. At that time, neither the concerned DOH and GSIS
officials nor the SIG personnel knew that the grant of hazard pay to
the
latter is not sanctioned by law. Thus, following the rulings of
the
Court in De Jesus v. Commission on Audit,[55]
and Blaquera v. Alcala,[56]
the SIG personnel who previously received hazard pay under R.A. No.
7305
need not refund such benefits.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the petition
is dismissed for lack of merit. COA Decision No. 2001-068 and
Resolution
No. 2001-207 are affirmed.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Davide, C.J.,
Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo,
Sr.,
and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., on official
leave.
Panganiban, J., on
official leave.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on official leave.
Carpio, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]Re:
Appeal of the Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Government Service
Insurance
System (GSIS-KMG) from Notice of Disallowance No. 99-120-XXX and
99-0138-ZZZ
issued by COA Commissioners Guillermo N. Carague (Chairman), Raul C.
Flores
and Emmanuel M. Dalman, Rollo, pp. 37-42.
[2]Re:
Motion of the Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Government Service
Insurance
System (KMG-GSIS) for reconsideration of COA Decision No. 2001-068
dated
May 10, 2001 issued by COA Commissioners Guillermo N. Carague
(Chairman),
Raul C. Flores and Emmanuel M. Dalman, Ibid. at 35-36.
[3]Section
2, R.A. No. 7305.
[4]Dr.
Juan M. Flavier.
[5]Rollo,
pp. 62-63.
[6]Dr.
Juan M. Flavier.
[7]Dr.
Hilarion J. Ramiro, Jr., who succeeded Dr. Flavier.
[8]Rollo,
pp. 45-46.
[9]Ibid.
at 74-76.
[10]Dr.
Carmencita N. Reodica, who succeeded Dr. Ramiro.
[11]Rollo,
p. 47.
[12]Ibid.
at 43.
[13]Id.
at 44.
[14]Id.
at 48-85.
[15]Id.
at 37-42.
[16]Id.
at 35-36.
[17]Id.
at 388.
[18]Supra
note 17.
[19]Memorandum
of the KMG, Id. at 389-393.
[20]Id.
at 393-396, 400-404.
[21]Id.
at 398-400.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]Id.
at 398-399.
[23]Memorandum
of the COA, Id. at 371-374.
[24]Id.
at 374-375.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]Id.
at 375.
[26]Id.
at 376.
[27]Id.
at. 367.
[28]Memorandum
of the KMG, Id. at 368-379; Memorandum of the COA, Id. at 383-411.
[29]Section
3, R.A. No. 7305.
[30]Paragraph
1, Rule III, Implementing Rules.
[31]See
Philippine Basketball Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119122,
August 8, 2000, 337 SCRA 358; National Power Corporation v. Angas, G.R.
Nos. 60225-26, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 542; Cebu Institute of Technology
v. Ople, G.R. No. L-58870, December 18, 1987, 156 SCRA 629; Ollada v.
Court
of Tax Appeals, 99 Phil. 604 [1956]; Murphy, Morris & Co. v.
Collector
of Customs, 11 Phil. 456 [1908].
[32]See
Republic Act No. 8291(the Revised GSIS Act of 1997); Section 3,
Commonwealth
Act No. 186 (An Act to Create and Establish a “Government Service
Insurance
System”, to Provide for its Administration, and to Appropriate the
Necessary
Funds Therefor); Act No. 1638 (An Act providing for the retirement of
officers
and enlisted men of the Philippine Constabulary on part pay after
twenty
or more years of satisfactory service, and amending Act Numbered Six
Hundred
and Nineteen); Act No. 3050 (An Act to provide annual pensions for
teachers
employed in the Philippine public schools; to appropriate money and
regulate
the disbursement thereof); Act No. 3173 (An Act providing for the
maintenance
in the Insular Treasury of a special fund to be known as Pension and
Retirement
Fund for certain officers of the Philippine Health Service, and
prescribing
ways and means for its creation and application, and for other
purposes).chanrobles virtual law library
[33]Section
2, Rule III of the Implementing Rules reads in full:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Health-related
Establishment—health service facility or unit which performs health
service
delivery functions within an agency whose legal mandate is not
primarily
the delivery of health services. This applies to, among others, clinics
and medical departments of government corporations, medical corps and
hospitals
of the AFP and the specific health service, section, division or bureau
or any type of organizational subdivision of a government agency.
In no case shall the law apply to the whole agency when the primary
function
of the agency is not the delivery of health services.
[34]See
Records of COA Decision No. 2001-068, File 1 and Resolution No.
2001-207,
File 1.
[35]Section
3, R.A. No. 7305, Paragraph 1, Rule III, Implementing Rules.
[36]Ibid.
[37]Id.
[38]Paragraph
1, Rule III, Implementing Rules.
[39]Ibid.
[40]Section
1, Rule I in relation to Section 2, Rule III, Implementing Rules.
Section
1, Rule I states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
These
Rules and Regulations shall cover persons engaged in health and
health-related
work, employed in hospitals, sanitaria, health centers, rural health
units,
barangay health stations, clinics and other health-related
establishments
owned and operated by the government or its political subdivisions,
regardless
of their employment status. Also covered are medical and allied
professionals
and support services personnel. (Emphasis supplied.)chanrobles virtual law library
For
full text of Section 2, Rule III, see note 33.
[41]Section
2, Rule III, Implementing Rules.chanrobles virtual law library
[42]Sections
7.1.1, 7.1.3, 7.1.5 and 7.1.6, Rule XV of the Implementing Rules
provide:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
7.1.1.
Eligibility to Receive Hazard Pay. — All public health workers covered
under RA 7305 are eligible to receive hazard pay when the nature of
their
work exposes them to high risk/low risk hazards for at least fifty
percent
(50%) of their working hours as determined and approved by the
Secretary
of Health or his authorized representatives.
7.1.2.
Basis for Granting Hazard Pay. — The following hazards are recognized
under
RA 7305: difficult locations; strife-torn or embattled areas;
distressed
and isolated stations; prison camps; mental hospitals; radiation
exposed
clinics; laboratories and disease-infested areas; areas declared under
a state of calamity or emergency for the duration when there is
exposure
to danger, contagious disease, radiation, volcanic activity or
eruption,
occupational risks and perils to life as determined by the Secretary of
Health or the Head of the Unit with the approval of the Secretary of
Health.
7.1.3.
Based on the standards provided by law, the following categories of
hazard
are hereby recognized:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
a.
High risk exposure shall refer to the direct, unavoidable and frequent
exposure to radiation, communicable/contagious/infectious/biological
hazards.
It includes those who from time to time are authorized to travel and be
assigned to hazardous workplaces where the above conditions exist.
b.
High risk hazardous areas shall include the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
•
Work areas in hospitals, sanitaria, rural health units, health centers,
clinics, barangay health stations, municipal health offices and
infirmaries
which shall include public health workers but not limited to medical
and
allied health personnel directly involved in the delivery of services
to
patients with highly contagious and communicable diseases including
those
handling hospital paraphernalia used by patients such as linen,
utensils,
bed pan, etc. Under this category, all field health workers giving
direct
service delivery are already classified as high risk.
•
Radiation exposed areas/clinics such as laboratories and service
workshops
which involves operation of radiation emitting equipment and handling
of
radioactive and toxic substances but not limited to the services of
x-ray
technicians and physiotherapists.chanrobles virtual law library
•
Institutions for mental health where exposure to bodily harm, and risks
from psychiatric patients actually exists.
•
Drug-abuse drop-in-centers or rehabilitation centers where exposure to
bodily harm and risks from drug-crazed patient exists.
•
Work areas where rescue operations/evacuation have to be carried out
due
to natural calamities, where the health workers/rescuers are directly
and
actually exposed to harm danger or occupational risks or perils to life
in the course of performing their duties.
•
Chemical and medical laboratories where health workers receive and
directly
handle infectious specimens or materials including but not limited to
services
rendered by pathologists, laboratory technicians and medical
technicians.chanrobles virtual law library
•
Highly disease-infected and vector-infested areas including but not
limited
to services rendered by malariologists, entomologists, and zoologists.
•
Work areas involving handling of and spraying of insecticides,
molluscides
and hazardous chemicals, flammable, noxious and explosive substances
including
but not limited to services rendered by malaria spraymen,
schistosomiasis
spray-men, sanitary inspector and chemists.
•
Work areas involving direct handling of laboratory animals for purposes
of experimentation, research, observation and the like.
c.
Low risk exposure refers to infrequent and minimum degree of exposure
in
a hazardous workplace wherein personnel are not directly involved in
the
delivery of services but nevertheless are in contact from time to time
with the former including the intended clientele and patients. Low-risk
hazardous areas shall include the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
•
Work areas in hospitals, sanitaria and infirmaries which entail minimal
risks or danger to health and safety due to indirect and infrequent
exposure
to patients in the said areas which shall include technical and
administrative
personnel whose duties/functions require visitation, networking,
coordinating,
monitoring, evaluating, referrals, etc.
•
Work areas adjacent to near hospitals dealing with infectious diseases.
7.1.5.
Rates of Hazard Paychanrobles virtual law library
a.
Public health workers shall be compensated hazard allowances equivalent
to at least twenty-five (25%) of the monthly basic salary of health
workers,
receiving salary grade 19 and below, and five percent (5%) for health
workers
with salary grade 20 and above. This may be granted on a monthly,
quarterly
or annual basis.chanrobles virtual law library
b.
The implementation of Hazard Pay shall be made on staggered basis
provided
that at the fifth year, the 25% and 5% differentiation shall have been
fully complied with or fully satisfied.
1999
- 1st
year
- 5%
2000
- 2nd
year
- 10%
2001
- 3rd
year
- 15%
2002
- 4th
year
- 20%
2003
- 5th
year
- 25%chanrobles virtual law library
c.
The public health workers exposed to high risk hazard may receive a
hazard
pay not exceeding 5% higher than those prescribed above.
7.1.6.
Limitationschanrobles virtual law library
Officials
and employees who are under the following instance of more than one (1)
full calendar month shall not be entitled to Hazard Duty Pay:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
a.
Those on vacation, sick, and study leave with or without pay;
b.
Those on maternity/paternity and terminal leave; and
c.
Those on full time attendance in training grant/scholarship
grant/seminar
or any other similar activity, except when the place of activity is
certified
to be risky or hazardous area as specified under 7.1.2. and 7.1.3.chanrobles virtual law library
[43]Section
7.1.4, Rule XV of the Implementing Rules provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
7.1.4.Entitlement
and Determination of Personnel Exposed to Hazards:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
a.
Each agency shall prepare a list of positions in its plantilla with the
corresponding job description that describes the basis for justifying
such
positions that are exposed to high risk or low risk hazard This list
shall
be reviewed by a DOH technical committee created for the purpose at the
national and regional levels, according to the standards provided
above.
Occupants of these positions shall then be granted hazard pay during
their
periods of work.chanrobles virtual law library
b.
Each head of agency shall establish a procedure for identifying
personnel
who shall be exposed to high risk or low risk hazard including the
duration
of such exposure. This procedure shall be similar to the provisions
authorizing
overtime pay.chanrobles virtual law library
c.
The Head of Agency/Local Chief Executive is authorized to allow the
grant
of hazard pay to all public health workers in accordance with the rules
and regulations in this IRR without the need for approval by the
Department
of Budget and Management (DBM) and shall ensure that funds for this
purpose
are set aside and made readily available.chanrobles virtual law library
d.
The period of entitlement to Hazard Pay shall be co-terminus with the
duration
of the actual assignment of the official or employee in the work areas
enumerated under item 7.1.3 above.
e.
Part-time officials and employees shall receive half of the amount
received
by the full-time official or employee in the same situation.
f.
Hazard Pay of officials and employees who are on full-time or part-time
detail with another agency shall be paid by their mother agency.
g.
Officials and employees, who would appear to be entitled to more than
one
type of Hazard Pay due to the peculiar nature of their work, shall only
be allowed to enjoy one type of Hazard Pay that is more advantageous to
them.chanrobles virtual law library
[44]Rollo,
pp. 45-46.chanrobles virtual law library
[45]Id.
at 47.chanrobles virtual law library
[46]Section
3, Chapter 1, Title IX, Book IV, Revised Administrative Code of 1987.
[47]Section
35, R.A. 7305 provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
Rules
and Regulations. — The Secretary of Health after consultation with
appropriate
agencies of the Government as well as professional and health workers'
organizations or unions, shall formulate and prepare the necessary
rules
and regulations to implement the provisions of this Act. Rules and
regulations
issued pursuant to this Section shall take effect thirty (30) days
after
publication in a newspaper of general circulation.chanrobles virtual law library
[48]See
COA Decision No. 2001-068, Rollo, p. 39.chanrobles virtual law library
[49]Section
3, Chapter 1, Title XVII, Book IV of the Revised Administrative Code of
1987 reads in full:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Powers
and Functions. — The Department of Budget and management shall assist
the
President in the preparation of a national resources and expenditures
budget,
preparation, execution and control of the National Budget, preparation
and maintenance of accounting systems essential to the budgetary
process,
achievement of more economy and efficiency in the management of
government
operations, administration of compensation and position classification
systems, assessment of organizational effectiveness and review and
evaluation
of legislative proposals having budgetary or organizational
implications.
[50]Section
2, Subdivision D, Article IX, Constitution; Section 11, Chapter 4,
Subtitle
B, Title I, Book V, Administrative Code of 1987. See also Feliciano v.
Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 147402, January 14, 2004.chanrobles virtual law library
[51]De
Jesus v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 149154, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA
666, citing National Electrification Administration v. Commission on
Audit,
G.R. No. 143481, February 15, 2002, 377 SCRA 223.chanrobles virtual law library
[52]Baybay
Water District v. Commission on Audit, G.R. Nos. 147248-49, January 23,
2002, 374 SCRA 482; Grace Christian High School v. Court of Appeals,
G.R.
No. 108905, October 23, 1997, 281 SCRA 133.chanrobles virtual law library
[53]Baybay
Water District v. Commission on Audit, supra; E.Rodriguez, Inc. v.
Collector
of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-23041, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA
1119;
Republic v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, G.R. No.
L-18841,
January 27, 1969, 26 SCRA 620; Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company
v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil 674 (1952).
[54]Baybay
Water District v. Commission on Audit, supra; Cebu Portland Cement
Company
v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-18146, March 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 572.
[55]G.R.
No. 149154, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 666.chanrobles virtual law library
[56]G.R.
No. 109406, September 11, 1998, 295 SCRA 366.
chan
robles virtual law library |