PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA) EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER JULY 1, 1989, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA); ARTHUR H. HINAL, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY CORPORATE AUDITOR; RAQUEL R. HABITAN, IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AUDIT OFFICE II, COA; AND SANTOS M. ALQUIZALAS, IN HIS

Ruling

Accordingly, in case of doubt, laws should be interpreted to favor the working class -- whether in the government or in the private sector -- in order to give flesh and vigor to the pro-poor and pro-labor provisions of our Constitution. The Case Before us is a Petition for Certiorari [2] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the May 27, 2003 Decision [3] and the October 16, 2003 Resolution [4] of the Commission on Audit (COA). The dispositive part of the Decision reads as follows: "Wherefore, premises considered the instant petitions are hereby denied for lack of merit." [5] The assailed COA Resolution denied reconsideration. The Facts The COA narrates the factual antecedents in this wise: "Records will bear that the PPA has been paying its officials and employees COLA and amelioration allowance equivalent to 40% and 10%, respectively, of their basic salary pursuant to various legislative and administrative issuances. During the last quarter of 1989, the PPA discontinued the payment thereof in view of Corporate Compensation Circular (CCC) No. 10 prescribing the implementing rules and regulations of R.A. No. 6758 otherwise known as the Salary Standardization Law which integrated said allowances into the basic salary effective July 1, 1989. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Rodolfo de Jesus, et al. vs. COA, G.R. No. 109023 dated August 12, 1998, declared CCC No. 10 as ineffective and unenforceable due to non-publication. Consequently, the PPA Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 1856 directing the payment of COLA and amelioration backpay to PPA personnel in the service during the period July 1, 1989 to March 16, 1999, the date of publication of CCC No. 10. "Doubting the validity of said Resolution, the PPA Auditor requested the opinion of the General Counsel on the propriety of the payment of the backpay. In fully concurring with the recommendation of the then Director, CAO II, the General Counsel ruled that 'in order for a PPA employee to be entitled to backpay representing COLA and amelioration pay equivalent to 40% and 10% respectively, of their basic salary, the following conditions must concur: 1) he has to be an incumbent as of July 1, 1989; and 2) has been receiving the COLA and amelioration pay as of July 1, 1989. Aggrieved, PPA sought reconsideration of the said advisory opinion which was denied by the General Counsel in a 1 st Indorsement dated September 13, 2001, since she found no cogent reason to set aside the earlier opinion. The PPA Auditor accordingly ruled against the grant of the subject backpay. Hence, the instant petitions for review anchored on the following arguments: 1) The unenforceability of CCC No. 10 did not alter the nature of COLA and amelioration allowance into a not integrated benefit within the purview of the second sentence of Section 12, R.A. No. 6758 but merely rendered them unidentified as integrated allowances; 2) The jurisprudence laid in PPA vs. COA, 214 SCRA 653 is not applicable in th