Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit." [4] Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in its February 27, 2003 Resolution. The Facts The antecedents were summarized by the appellate court as follows: "Republic Act No. 6758 (R.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit." [4] Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA in its February 27, 2003 Resolution. The Facts The antecedents were summarized by the appellate court as follows: "Republic Act No. 6758 (R.A. 6758), otherwise known as 'An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For Other Purposes,' took effect on 1 July 1989. Section 12 thereof provides for the consolidation of allowances and additional compensation into standardized salary rates, but certain additional compensation were exempted from consolidation. "Section 12 of R.A. 6758 provides that: 'Section 12. - Consolidation of Allowance 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 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 as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized." "The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10) to implement R.A. 6758. Section 5.5 of DBM-CCC No. 10 enumerated the other allowances/fringe benefits which are not likewise integrated into the basic salary rates prescribed under R.A. 6758, but were allowed to be continued only for incumbents as of 30 June 1989. "Sec. 5.5 of DBM-CCC No. 10 states: "5.5 Other allowances/fringe benefits not likewise integrated into the basic salary and allowed to be continued only for incumbents as of June 30, 1989 subject to the condition that the grant of the same is with appropriate authorization either from the DBM, Office of the President or legislative issuances are as follows: 5.5.1 Rice Subsidy; 5.5.2 Sugar Subsidy; 5.5.3 Death Benefits other than those granted by the GSIS; 5.5.4 Medical/Dental/Optical allowances/ Benefits; 5.5.5 Children's Allowances; 5.5.6 Special Duty Pay/Allowance; 5.5.7 Meal Subsidy; 5.5.8 Longevity Pay; and 5.5.9 Teller's allowances.' "Paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 provides: 'Payment of other allowances/fringe benefits and all other forms of compensation granted on top of basic salary, whether in cash or in kind ' shall be discontinued effective November 1, 1989. Payment made for such allowances/fringe benefits after said date shall be considered as illegal disbursement of public funds.' "On 12 August 1998, the Supreme Court[,] in the case of Rodolfo S. de Jesus, Edelwina de Parungao, Venus M. Dozon and other similarly situated personnel of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) -versus- Commission on Audit and