G.R. No. 185812 - MARITIME INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

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. Simply stated, the challenged benefit is covered by the second sentence of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758, the application of sub-paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CCC No. 10 being only confined to the first sentence of Section 12, particularly the last clause thereof which amplifies the catch-all proviso. [97] (Citations omitted) In Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Employees Union v. Commission on Audit, [98] this court affirmed the disallowance of the grant of the food basket allowance in the amount of P10,000.00 to employees of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. This court held: In the instant case, the Food Basket Allowance is definitely not in the nature of an allowance to reimburse expenses incurred by officials and employees of the government in the performance of their official functions. It is not payment in consideration of the fulfilment of official duty. It is a form of financial assistance to all officials and employees of BFAR. Petitioner itself stated that the Food Basket Allowance has the purpose of alleviating the economic condition of BFAR employees. [99] VI Who identifies and grants Respondent Commission on Audit argues that the alleged approval by the President is not a law that would allow the grant of allowances and benefits to the employees of petitioner Maritime Industry Authority. Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 does not require the enactment of a law to exclude benefits or allowances from the standardized salary. What is required is a determination by the Department of Budget and Management of the non-integrated benefits or allowances. In Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima : [100] Congress has two options when enacting legislation to define national policy within the broad horizons of its legislative competence. It can itself formulate the details or it can assign to the executive branch the responsibility for making necessary marginal decisions in conformity with those standards. In the latter case, the law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. Thus, what is left for the executive branch or the concerned administrative agency when it f