G.R. No. 221706 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the phrase "[u]nless otherwise set by the Board and approved by the President of the Philippines," at the beginning of the 8 th paragraph, Section 8 of the DBP Charter refers to the authority of the Board, with the approval of the President, to increase the per diems of Board members only. The second sentence therein, which states that "[t]he total amount of per diems for every single month shall not exceed the sum of Seven thousand five hundred pesos (P7,500.00)," bolsters the interpretation that the provision only refers to the per diem and not to the payment of any additional benefit of the Board. The issue of whether Board members are entitled to benefits other than per diems has been settled in Bases Conversion and Development Authority v. COA (BCDA v. COA). [18] In said case, the BCDA alleged that the Board can grant the year-end benefit to its members because R.A. No. 7227, or the BCDA Charter, does not expressly prohibit it from doing so. In dismissing its argument, the Court ruled: The Court is not impressed. A careful reading of Section 9 of RA No. 7227 reveals that the Board is prohibited from granting its members other benefits. Section 9 states: Members of the Board shall receive a per diem of not more than Five [T]housand [P]esos (P5,000) for every board meeting: Provided, however, That the per diem collected per month does not exceed the equivalent of four (4) meetings: Provided, further, That the amount of per diem for every board meeting may be increased by the President but such amount shall not be increased within two (2) years after its last increase. Section 9 specifies that Board members shall receive a per diem for every board meeting; limits the amount of per diem to not more than P5,000; limits the total amount of per diem for one month to not more than four meetings; and does not state that Board members may receive other benefits. In Magno, Cabili, De Jesus, Molen, Jr., and Baybay Water District, the Court held that the specification of compensation and limitation of the amount of compensation in a statute indicate that Board members are entitled only to the per diem authorized by law and no other. The specification that Board members shall receive a per diem of not more than P5,000 for every meeting and the omission of a provision allowing Board members to receive other benefits lead the Court to the inference that Congress intended to limit the compensation of Board members to the per diem authorized by law and no other. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Had Congress intended to allow the Board members to receive other benefits, it would have expressly stated so. [19] (citations omitted, emphases supplied) BCDA v. COA declared that the BCDA Charter does not state that Board members may receive benefits other than per diems. Had its Charter intended the Board to receive other such benefits, then it would have expressly provided it. Similarly, in the present case, Section 8 of the DBP Charter only ment