G.R. No. 210905 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA), REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR HANS LEO J. CACDAC, AND OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION (OWWA), REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATOR REBECCA J. CALZADO, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACE M. PULIDO-TA

Ruling

Accordingly, in order that the SFI may be allowed, the requisites for the entitlement of benefits falling under the second sentence of Section 12 must be established. Unfortunately, there is no evidence on record that the recipients of the SFI were incumbents when R.A. No. 6758 took effect on July 1, 1989 and that they were in fact receiving the same at the time . Hence, no abuse of discretion was committed by COA in disallowing the disbursement of funds for the SFI of PITC; [49] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) while in National Tobacco Administration , [50] We made the following pronouncement: x x x Accordingly, the Court concludes that under the aforesaid " catch-all proviso ," the legislative intent is just to include the fringe benefits which are in the nature of allowances and since the benefit under controversy is not in the same category, it is safe to hold that subject educational assistance is not one of the fringe benefits within the contemplation of the first sentence of Section 12 but rather, of the second sentence of Section 12, in relation to Section 17 of R.A. No. 6758, considering that (1) the recipients were incumbents when R.A. No. 6758 took effect on July 1, 1989, (2) were, in fact, receiving the same, at the time , and (3) such additional compensation is distinct and separate from the specific allowances above-listed, as the former is not integrated into the standardized salary rate. [51] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) In the case at bar, while OWWA and POEA assert that the Allowance Incentive has been paid to the latter's employees since 1982, they failed to show that the officers and employees who received the payments covered by Notice of Disallowance No. 2005-015 were incumbents who have been receiving the Incentive Allowance since before the effectivity of R.A. No. 6758 in 1989. Moreover, the minutes of the November 21, 2001 OWWA Board meeting refer to the "proposed POEA incentive", the grant of which was debated lively. [52] This can only mean that sometime between the approval of the 1982 Welfare Fund Resolution and the November 21, 2001 OWWA Board meeting, Incentive Allowance payments ceased or were stopped, otherwise the OWWA Board would not have been denominated it as a "proposed incentive" and debated the merits of granting thereof. As such, the COA did not err in holding that the disallowed payments contravened the salary integration rules of R.A. No. 6758. As for double compensation, Article IX-B, Section 8 of the Constitution states: Section 8. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept without the consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government. Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation. Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando expounded on the meaning of this provision in Peralta