G.R. No. 205837 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the request is DENIED and the assailed observation in the 2010 AAR of the PITC STANDS . [11] PITC, thus, filed the present petition for certiorari . The Arguments of PITC According to PITC, the Decision in G.R. No. 183517 should be applied prospectively from the time it became final on September 27, 2010. To apply said decision retroactively would allegedly unjustly divest qualified PITC employees of their vested rights to receive the benefits under Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756. The six-month period in Executive Order No. 877 was only for the purpose of implementing reorganization, but not for the purpose of amending Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756. PITC claims that the COA itself deemed Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 as permanent in nature since the latter never issued any notice of suspension, notice of disallowance or audit observation memorandum against the grant of the retirement benefits in said provision during the years that PITC granted them to its retiring employees. Prior to the finality of the Decision in G.R. No. 183517, the interpretation that Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 was permanent in nature was allegedly an existing operative fact upon which PITC and its employees relied in good faith. As such, PITC argues that its employees' entitlement to the benefits under Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 after two years of service in the company and the computation and allocation of said benefits in PITC's books should only end on September 27, 2010. PITC prayed for the annulment of the assailed COA Decision No. 2013-016 and the amendment of the 2010 AAR to reflect the fact that PITC's estimated liability for employees' benefits account balance of P52.70 million was not misstated. The Arguments of the COA In praying for the dismissal of the petition, the COA asserts that when the Court renders a decision that merely interprets a particular provision of law - one that neither establishes a new doctrine nor supplants an old doctrine - the interpretation takes effect and becomes part of the law as of the date when the law was originally passed. The COA points out that the Decision in G.R. No. 183517 did not overrule an old doctrine nor adopt a new one. The Decision simply interpreted Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 and clarified that the provision was effective in a temporary and limited application when it was correlated with other laws. The COA also posits that no vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions that are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others. In the Decision in G.R. No. 183517, the Court already declared the illegality of the disbursements and payments of the retirement benefits under Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756 that were granted beyond the period of the reorganization of PITC. The same were held to be contrary to Section 28(b) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by Section 10 of Republic Act No. 4968. Thus, the g