G.R. No. 116422 - AVELINA B. CONTE AND LETICIA BOISER-PALMA, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA).

Ruling

Accordingly, all such claims for financial assistance under SSS Resolution No. 56 dated January 21, 1971 should be disallowed in audit." (underscoring supplied) Despite the aforequoted ruling of respondent COA, then SSS Administrator Jose L. Cuisia, Jr. nevertheless wrote [5] on February 12, 1990 then Executive Secretary Catalino Macaraig, Jr., seeking "presidential authority for SSS to continue implementing its Resolution No. 56 dated January 21, 1971 granting financial assistance to its qualified retiring employees". However, in a letter-reply dated May 28, 1990, [6] then Executive Secretary Macaraig advised Administrator Cuisia that the Office of the President "is not inclined to favorably act on the herein request, let alone overrule the disallowance by COA" of such claims, because, aside from the fact that decisions, order or actions of the COA in the exercise of its audit functions are appealable to the Supreme Court [7] pursuant to Sec. 50 of PD 1445, the benefits under said Res. 56, though referred to as financial assistance, constituted additional retirement benefits, and the scheme partook of the nature of a supplementary pension/retirement plan proscribed by law. The law referred to above is RA 4968 (The Teves Retirement Law), which took effect June 17, 1967 and amended CA 186 (otherwise known as the Government Service Insurance Act, or the GSIS Charter), making Sec. 28 (b) of the latter act read as follows: "(b) Hereafter, no insurance or retirement plan for officers or employees shall be created by employer. All supplementary retirement or pension plans heretofore in force in any government office, agency or instrumentality or corporation owned or controlled by the government, are hereby declared inoperative or abolished; Provided, That the rights of those who are already eligible to retire thereunder shall not be affected."(underscoring supplied) On January 12, 1993, herein petitioners filed with respondent COA their "letter-appeal/protest" [8] seeking reconsideration of COAs ruling of July 10, 1989 disallowing claims for financial assistance under Res. 56. On November 15, 1993, petitioner Conte sought payment from SSS of the benefits under Res. 56. On December 9, 1993, SSS Administrator Renato C. Valencia denied [9] the request in consonance with the previous disallowance by respondent COA, but assured petitioner that should the COA change its position, the SSS will resume the grant of benefits under said Res. 56. On March 15, 1994, respondent COA rendered its COA Decision No. 94-126 denying petitioners request for reconsideration. Thus this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Issues The issues [10] submitted by petitioners may be simplified and re-stated thus: Did public respondent abuse its discretion when it disallowed in audit petitioners claims for benefits under SSS Res. 56? Petitioners argue that the financial assistance under Res. 56 is not a retirement plan prohibited by RA 4968, and that