Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 1992 > February 1992 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 94205 : February 11, 1992] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL. :

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 11, 1992


Petitioner seeks the reversal of Resolution No. 90-351 of respondent Civil Service Commission (CSC) dated April 11, 1990, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration and upholding its earlier Resolution No. 89-945, dated December 7, 1989, holding that private respondent Potenciana M. Evangelista is entitled to representation and transportation  allowances (RATA) despite her assignment to the Advisory Council of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), a position to which no such allowances are attached.

In the first place, a review of the records as substantially completed reveals that said petition was actually filed out of time. Notably petitioner does not state and the records do not show when it received a copy of Resolution No. 89-945. It only appears that it filed a request in the CSC for the reconsideration thereof on February 27, 1990 (Rollo, p. 45). A petition for certiorari challenging a resolution of the CSC must be filed with this Court within thirty (30) days from notice Section 7, Article IX-A, Constitution). From the reglementary period must be deducted the number of days that elapsed from the receipt of the original resolution, in this case Resolution No. 89-945, up to petitioner's filing of his motion for reconsideration (Manalansang vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 93500, Resolution En Banc, February 5, 1991). The balance remaining from said thirty-day period would be the allowance time within which petitioner may file a petition for certiorari or move for an extended period therefor which, in the case at bar, would definitely be much less than thirty (30) days.

It was, therefore, misleading for petitioner to represent in its motion for extension of time to file the represent petition for certiorari (Rollo, p. 1) that, having received a copy of Resolution No. 90-351 (which denied his motion for reconsideration) on May 25, 1990, it still had thirty (30) days or up to June 24, 1990 within which to file said petition. Yet, even on that assumption, this petition is likewise time-barred. Petitioner admitted receipt of a copy of Resolution No. 90-35] on May 25, 1990 and moved for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file the present petition, to be reckoned from June 24, 1990 which it erroneously claims to be the last day of the reglementary period. Said motion for extension, however, was file by mail on June 25, 1990; one day after the lapse of petitioner's assumed expiration of the reglementary period.

On the substantive merits, the factual millieu of this case does not justify the position taken by petitioner. Private respondent was appointed to and had been holding the position of Chief Revenue Officer IV, Revenue Accounting Division of the BIR since March 19, 1984. On December 1, 1988, petitioner issued Revenue Travel Assignment Order No. 266-88 relieving her from her position and assigning her to the Advisory Council, an office  created on March 30, 1988 by Revenue Administration Order No. 8-88 of the BIR. Private respondent filed a petition assailing her transfer as unconstitutional, which petition was referred to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

From an adverse decision of the MSPB, private respondent appealed to the CSC which rendered its Resolution No. 89-945 dismissing her appeal but holding that "as to the representation and traveling allowances (RATA) of Potenciana Evangelista as Chief of the Revenue Accounting Division, she is thus entitled thereto and should be paid thereof during the period of her reassignment" (Rollo, p. 42).

Petitioner contends that respondent commission "has no jurisdiction" to order the award of RATA since the power to determine the officials who are entitled to receive the same is vested by law in the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) we are not in accord with this submission.

The CSC, in holding that private respondent is entitled to RATA, does not encroach upon the powers of the DBM. Respondent commission, in issuing the questioned resolutions, was not awarding rata to private respondent, but merely upholding the latter's right thereto. Under the General Appropriations Acts for 1989 and 1990 (Section 28, Republic Act No. 6688 and Section 34, Republic Act No. 6831), private respondent, who is holding the position of chief of division, is entitled to a monthly RATA which she was admittedly receiving prior to her reassignment.

Respondent commission has accordingly ruled that the reassignment of private respondent to another station or place of reassignment should not result in her deprivation of the RATA to which she is entitled under the law since she remains to be a chief of division despite her reassignment. On petitioner's contention that RATA should be allowed only if private respondent is performing the duties of her former office, the CSC correctly explained that private respondent was "reassigned to another office and thus her inability to perform the functions of her position as Division Chief is beyond her control and not of her own volition. Notwithstanding the pendency of a case against her, it is undisputed that Evangelista has not been preventively suspended to warrant the denial of her money benefits such as RATA." Moreover, it observed, there can be no duplicative grant of RATA to the person designated to perform the duties of the position previously held by private respondent as designation does not entail the payment of the salary or additional benefits attached to the position (Rollo, p. 19).

More to the point, in our resolution in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. (G. R. No. 101186, November 7, 1991), we sustained the resolution of the CSC directing that private respondent therein be allowed to reassume his position as Assistant Commissioner, Excise Tax Service, and to be paid his RATA during the period of his reassignment to the Advisory Council. We affirmed the finding that the Advisory Council was a non-existent office and private respondent therein was reassigned to a non-existent position because a mere revenue administrative order could not create new public offices in the BIR. The non-payment of RATA to private respondent therein was likewise declared invalid on the rationale that wherever said respondent was reassigned, he was entitled to his RATA.

The sole issue raised in the present recourse, however, is only with respect to the entitlement of private respondent Potenciana M. Evangelista to RATA during her reassignment to the Advisory Council which, in light of the foregoing disquisition, we answer in the affirmative. As has been demonstrated, the apprehensions of petitioner, that RATA will have to be paid to the official who was reassigned and also to the one designated as the substitute, are unfounded.

ACCORDINGLY, no grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error having been proved against public respondent, the Court resolved to DISMISS the petition.