Summary: The
implementation of Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989) resulted in the integration of all allowances
previously received, including Cost of Living Allowance and Amelioration
Allowance, into the basic standardized salary. When a government entity ceases
to be covered by Republic Act No. 6758, the new position classification and
compensation plan must also include all allowances previously received in the
basic salary, in line with the principle of non-diminution of pay.
FACTS: This case
resolves the 16,500 Workers' Solicitous Motion for Reconsideration filed by
respondents National Power Corporation Employees Consolidated Union
(NECU) and the National Power Corporation Employees and
Workers Union (NEWU)
A Petition for Mandamus was filed by NECU and NEWU with
Branch 84, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, praying that the National Power
Corporation (NAPOCOR) be ordered to release the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA)
and Amelioration (AA) allegedly withheld from them from July 1, 1989 to March
19, 1999. NECU and NEWU believed that they were among the government employees
whose COLA and AA were not factually integrated into their basic salary upon
the implementation of Republic Act No. 6758.
The trial court granted their Petition and awarded a total
of P6,496,055,339.98 as alleged back COLA and AA with P704,777,508.60 as legal
interest. A Writ of Execution was issued.
The Office of the Solicitor General and the Secretary of
Budget and Management separately filed Petitions for Certiorari with
the Supreme Court to nullify the trial court's issuances.
On February 7, 2017, the Court rendered a Decision granting
the Petitions for Certiorari. The Supreme Court held, among others, that
respondents NECU's and NEWU's COLA and AA for the period July 1, 1989 to March
19, 1999 were already factually integrated into their basic salaries, by virtue
of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 and Memorandum Order No. 198, series of
1994.
In a motion to reconsider, NECU and NEWU insist that law,
jurisprudence, and evidence support their contention that their COLA and AA
were deducted from their salaries from July 1, 1989 to March 19, 1999. In
particular, they distinguish NAPOCOR workers into three (3) categories. The
first category includes workers already employed when Republic Act No. 6758
took effect and whose COLA and AA were integrated into their basic salaries
only up to 1993. The second category covers those hired after Republic Act No.
6758 took effect and whose COLA and AA were allegedly deducted from 1989 to
1999. The third category consists of employees hired after the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 7648 and whose COLA and AA were allegedly deducted from 1994
to 1999.
ISSUE: NECU and
NEWU attempt to sway the Court by-insisting that those hired after Republic Act
No. 6758 took effect have never received their COLA and AA and that these
allowances were deducted from their basic pay.
HELD: NECU and
NEWU are wrong.
The Court clarified that those who were already receiving
COLA and AA as of July 1, 1989, but whose receipt was discontinued due to the
issuance of DBM-CCC No. 10, were entitled to receive such allowances during the
period of the Circular's ineffectivity, or from July 1,1989 to March 16,1999.
The same factual premise was present in Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System, wherein this Court reiterated that those
already receiving COLA as of July 1, 1989 were entitled to its payment from
1989 to 1999.
In neither of these cases did this Court suggest that the
compensation of the employees after the promulgation of Republic Act No. 6758
would be increased with the addition of the COLA and AA. If the total
compensation package were the same, then clearly the COLA or AA, or both were
factually integrated.
Republic Act No. 6758 remained effective during the period
of ineffectivity of DBM-
CCC No. 10. Thus, the COLA and AA of NAPOCOR officers and
employees were integrated into the standardized salaries effective July 1, 1989
pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758, which provides:
Section 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. -
All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances;
clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and
crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances
of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional
compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM,
shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed.
Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received
by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized
salary rates shall continue to be authorized.
Existing additional compensation of any national government
official or employee paid from local funds of a local government unit shall be
absorbed into the basic salary of said official or employee and shall be paid
by the National Government.
Those who were hired after the implementation of Republic
Act No. 6758, or after July 1, 1989, did not receive a lesser compensation
package than those who were hired before July 1, 1989. To emphasize,
respondents NECU's and NEWU's COLA and AA were integrated into their basic
salary by virtue of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758.
Section 12 has never been ineffective or rendered
unconstitutional. Thus, all allowances not covered by the exceptions to Section
12 are presumed to have been integrated into the basic standardized pay. The
receipt of a transition allowance is not proof that only those who were hired
before July 1, 1989 received their COLA and AA. As this Court explained in its
February 7, 2017 Decision, the transition allowance was given only to comply with
the non-diminution clause of the law. It was never meant as an additional
compensation to the standardized pay.
The Court likewise clarified that upon the implementation
of Republic Act No. 7648, NAPOCOR workers were covered by a new compensation plan.
All prior questions on the non-publication of Department of Budget and
Management Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 would no longer apply to the
determination of whether COLA and AA were withheld. Furthermore, the new
compensation plan under Republic Act No. 7648 already incorporated all benefits
previously integrated, including the COLA and AA.
The alleged "Exhibit C" presented by respondents
NECU and NEWU as evidence to prove that the COLA and AA were factually deducted
from their basic pay is unmeritorious. It appears to be a collection list
submitted before the Regional Trial Court in compliance with the Writ of
Execution dated March 23, 2009. The list specifies names of employees, a
computation of their alleged entitlements to their COLA and AA, and deductions
for attorney's fees and docket fees. However, these computations were made only
after the trial court had ruled in their favor. This Court has already ruled
that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the judgment award.
Thus, these computations do not prove conclusively that respondents NECU's and
NEWU's COLA and AA were withheld from July 1, 1989 to March 19, 1999.
Respondents NECU and NEWU, all 16,500 of them, were in a
position to submit to this Court any pay slip or Notice of Position Allocation
and Salary Adjustment showing an actual deduction of the COLA and AA from July
1, 1989 to March 19, 1999. They have failed to do so. As it stands, respondents
NECU and NEWU have failed to prove that their COLA and AA were factually
deducted from their basic pay.
Interestingly, while the 16,500 Workers' Solicitous Motion
for Reconsideration was pending, two (2) motions were filed by the law firm of
Angara Abella Concepcion Regala & Cruz (ACCRA), formally entering its
appearance as lead counsel on behalf of respondents NECU and NEWU.[33] These
motions were an Entry of Appearance with Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court and
Time to File Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for Leave to
File and Admit Attached Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
The ACCRA pleadings do not contain a conforme from respondents NECU and NEWU or a withdrawal of
appearance from their counsel, Atty. Napoleon Uy Galit (Atty. Galit). It also
appears from ACCRA'S affidavits of service that there were no copies furnished
to Atty. Galit or to respondents NECU and NEWU. While motions for
reconsideration are not among the pleadings required to be verified,[36] this
circumstance is highly unusual, especially considering that the grant of a
motion for reconsideration in this case may result in a more than P7 billion
judgment award.
Nonetheless, in view of the denial of the 16,500 Workers'
Solicitous Motion for Reconsideration, this Court finds that it is no longer
necessary to pass upon ACCRA'S pleadings.
Comments
Post a Comment