ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 116869.January 24, 2001]
DONATO JR., et al. vs. RUVIVAR JR.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, foryour information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 24 2001.
G.R. No. 116869(Andres E. Donato, Jr., et al., vs. Francisco V. Ruvivar, Jr., as Administrator of Parole and Probation Administration.)
This petition for mandamus seeks to prevent respondent Administrator from implementing the Parole and Probation Administration (PPA) Memorandum of September 15, 1992, which mandates the charging of loyalty awards against savings of the central and regional offices of the PPA. Petitioners would have us require respondent to fix and pay the yearly cash bonuses, retroactive to the 1992 cash bonus, of PPA officials and employees on a uniform basis, in an amount based on the savings of the agency as a whole.
The factual antecedents of this case are as follows:
On September 15, 1992, then PPA Administrator Demetrio Demetria issued a Memorandum on the Grant of 1992 Loyalty Awards. The Memorandum authorized the various regional offices of the agency to fix the loyalty cash bonus based on the savings from their respective budget allocations. As a result, varying cash bonus rates per year of service were awarded to the agency's Loyalty Awardees in the various regions for 1992.
On November 10, 1992, petitioners wrote respondent asking that payment of the Loyalty Award be based on the savings of the PPA as a whole, and not on the savings of the regional offices. Petitioners complained that the PPA employees in the various regional offices received less than those assigned to the Central Office.
On December 7, 1992, petitioners appealed respondent's inaction to the Office of the President. Said appeal was endorsed by the Executive Secretary to the Department of Budget and Management for comment and recommendation.
On August 23, 1993, the Secretary of Budget and Management referred the issue to the Civil Service Commission for resolution, with his opinion that the source of funding for the loyalty award should be the PPA's savings as a whole.
On November 16, 1993, Civil Service Commissioner Ramon Ereneta, Jr., wrote petitioners that the funding source for the grant of loyalty award as contemplated under the Omnibus Civil Service Rules should be the agency's savings as whole and not on a regional basis.
On April 27, 1994, however, respondent informed petitioners that he deemed Commissioner Ereneta's interpretative opinion as merely advisory in character and prospective in effect. It did not make the September 15, 1992 PPA Memorandum invalid. Petitioners then elevated the matter to this Court.
We find the petition without merit. First, petitioners pray that the respondent be compelled to order the refund of a supposedly excess cash bonus paid to certain unidentified PPA employees. However, these employees claimed to have received cash bonuses in excess are neither named nor properly impleaded as respondents in this case. Hence, they are not parties to this case. It is, therefore, beyond the pale of this Court to order them to refund what they allegedly received in excess. For this failure to implead indispensable parties, the petition should be dismissed.
Moreover, even if we consider the merits of this petition, we will still be constrained to order its dismissal. The basic issue raised by petitioners is whether mandamus will lie to compel respondent to pay the cash component of the 1992 Loyalty Awards in the manner sought by petitioners. They contend that respondents had no discretion to charge the payment of the Loyalty Award cash bonus against the savings of the central and various regional offices of the agency, as the Civil Service Rules nowhere gave the PPA regional offices authority to determine the amount of the cash bonus.
A writ of mandamus will lie to compel the performance of a ministerial, not a discretionary duty, provided the petitioner shows that he has a clear and certain right, founded in law, to warrant the grant thereof. In the present case, petitioners have failed to discharge the duty to show their entitlement to the writ prayed for.
The record shows that at the time the cash bonus was granted, as well as at present, each PPA regional office has its own budgetary allocation coming directly from the Department of Budget and Management. This enabled each regional office to exercise some degree of autonomy in the expenditure of its funds and in determining its savings from which the cash bonus was to be charged. Under the circumstances, to require, as petitioners insist, that each regional office determine its savings and remit the same to a common fund, from which the cash bonus was to be determined and disbursed would have been impractical. Hence, the delegation of the determination of the cash bonus by respondent's predecessor to the regional offices is a sound exercise of discretion, which may not be controlled by mandamus. There is nothing in the Civil Service Rules which prohibits the exercise of such discretion on the part of the agency head. On the contrary, by providing merely for a minimum amount per year of continuous service, the Civil Service Rules granted sufficient discretion to the PPA Administrator to determine the amount that could be granted as cash bonus on the basis of savings. Equally, the delegation to the regional offices to determine the amount that could be charged against their respective savings is also a matter of discretion. Mandamus may not be utilized to compel the performance of a discretionary act.
Furthermore, a cash bonus is not a matter of right of government employees, but is an act of beneficence on the part of government, subject to the availability of savings against which said bonus may be charged. Petitioners' contention that by reason of the earmarking and grant of the cash bonus in varied rates by region, they had already acquired a vested right to the PPA's saving before November 7, 1992 has no basis in law or jurisprudence. There can be no such vested right by private individuals over public funds. If it is true that public funds had been allotted and paid as cash bonuses under a void delegated authority to PPA officers and employees, then the recipients of the excessive cash bonus should be ordered to refund the same to the Government. But definitely mandamus will not lie to compel respondent to pay the claimed "excess" to petitioners on a mere claim that their individual cash bonus was allegedly underpaid.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Bellosillo, J., Chairman took no part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
