G.R. No. 250787 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, CHAIRPERSON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, that Section 16(n) of R.A. 7875 granting PHIC's power to fix the compensation of its personnel does not explicitly provide that the same shall be subject to the approval of the DBM or the OP as in Section 19(d) thereof does not necessarily mean that the PHIC has unbridled discretion to issue any and all kinds of allowances, limited only by the provisions of its charter. As clearly expressed in PCSO v. COA, even if it is assumed that there is an explicit provision exempting a GOCC from the rules of the then Office of Compensation and Position Classification (OCPC) under the DBM, the power of its Board to fix the salaries and determine the reasonable allowances, bonuses and other incentives was still subject to the standards laid down by applicable laws: P.D. No. 985, its 1978 amendment, P.D. No. 1597, the SSL, and at present, R.A. 10149. To sustain petitioners' claim that it is the PHIC, and PHIC alone, that will ensure that its compensation system conforms with applicable law will result in an invalid delegation of legislative power, granting the PHIC unlimited authority to unilaterally fix its compensation structure. Certainly, such effect could not have been the intent of the legislature. [53] (Citations omitted) The Court reiterated its rejection of Philhealth's fiscal autonomy as justification for the payment of allowances and benefits in the following disallowance cases also involving Philhealth: (a) Philippine Health Insurance Corp. v. Commission on Audit , G.R. No. 235832, November 3, 2020; (b) Philippine Health Insurance Corp. v. Commission on Audit , G.R. No. 222129, February 2, 2021; (c) Philippine Health Insurance Corp. Regional Office-CARAGA v. Commission on Audit (Resolution) , G.R. No. 230218, July 6, 2021; and (d) Philippine Health Insurance Corp. v. Commission on Audit , G.R. No. 250089, November 9, 2021. That Philhealth's fiscal autonomy had been purportedly confirmed by the Chief Executive and the OGCC, as Philhealth argues, [54] cannot undermine the consistent and unequivocal Court pronouncements. At this point, there should no longer be any question that Philhealth is not exempted from the application of the SSL. Its power to fix personnel compensation is limited and "must necessarily yield to the state policy of 'equal pay for equal work.' Thus, any disbursement of allowances and other forms of employee compensation must conform with prevailing rules and regulations issued by the President of the Philippines and/or the [DBM]." [55] To be sure, the resolutions of the Board of Directors granting the EAA and Birthday Gift sans executive/DBM review and approval as required under PD No. 985, as amended, PD No. 1597, the SSL, and RA No. 10149 are ultra vires acts, [56] which rendered the subsequent disbursements illegal and irregular. [57] These infractions are substantial. In view of these, there is no more need to elaborate on the same approval requirement reiterated in MO No. 20 and AO No. 103. II The general princi