Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/120729821/de-jesus-vs-csc
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:32:57+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 156559 September 30, 2005 RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, and REBECCA A. BARBO, Petitioners, vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Chico-Nazario, and (CSC) and LWUA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS, (LEAP) Represented by Its Chairman, LEONARDO C. CRUZ, Respondent. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: ords and phrases in a statute must be given their natural, ordinary, and commonly accepted meaning. Due regard should be given to the context in which they are used. Settled is the rule that under Section 13 of Presidential Decree (PD) 198, per diem is precisely intended to be the compensation of members of the board of directors of water districts. By specifying the compensation they are entitled to receive, limiting the amount they are allowed to receive each month, and stating in the same paragraph that they shall receive no compensation other than the specified per diems, the law quite clearly mandates that directors of water districts be authorized to receive only those per diems.No other compensation or allowance in whatever form shall be given to or received by them. The Case Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the July 10, 2001 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 40613, as well as the December 11, 2002 CA Resolution3 denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. The decretal portion of the assailed Decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is partially granted and the assailed Resolution of the Civil Service Commission dated 11 July 1995 is hereby MODIFIED in accordance with the foregoing disquisition."4 On the other hand, the July 11, 1995 Resolution5 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) mentioned above disposed as follows: "WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby rules that it is illegal for any LWUA officer or employee who sits as member of the board of directors of a water district to receive and collect any additional, double, or indirect compensation from said water district, except per diems pursuant to Section 13 of PD 198, as amended."6 The Facts The facts are narrated by the CA as follows: "The LWUA Employees Association for Progress (LEAP), through its Chairman, Leonardo C. Cruz, filed with the CSC a complaint against Camilo P. Cabili and Antonio R. De Vera, Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Administrator, respectively, of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) for alleged violation of RA 6713, otherwise known as the ‘Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees’.
The CSC however ruled that ‘it is illegal for any LWUA officer or employee who sits as a member of the board of directors of a water district to receive and collect any additional. violative of CSC Resolution No. contending that the CSC erroneously and short-sightedly interpreted the provision of the Constitution relative to additional. xxxxxxxxx "During the pendency of the x x x petition [with the CA]. Barbo. Parungao and Rebecca A. that under the LWUA Charter (PD 198 as amended). 954073. 96-2079 dated 21 March 1996. hence. on the other. Edelwina DG. Article IX (B) of the 1987 Constitution. LWUA is vested with corporate authority to take over the policy-making and management functions of defaulting water districts in order to protect its financial investment. as amended’. 94-0521 prescribing the Uniform Rules of Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigation."The complaint stemmed from the alleged failure or refusal of Cabili and De Vera to give due course or respond to the Memorandum dated 26 August 1994 of LEAP requesting investigation on the allegation of columnist Lito A. two (2) separate motions for intervention were filed by Abundio L. "LWUA Chairman Cabili and Administrator De Vera moved for reconsideration of Resolution No. any LWUA personnel who sits as a member of the board of directors of a water district is entitled to receive the same compensation and benefits which other members enjoy. "There being no opposition from [the parties]. the CSC dismissed the charge for violation of RA 6713 against LWUA Chairman Cabili and Administrator De Vera. RATA. in their separate petitions-in-intervention. LWUA Chairman Cabili and Administrator De Vera elevated the case to [the CA] x x x. LWUA Administrator De Vera claimed. either as interim director or LWUA-appointed 6th member of water districts. Section 8 of the Decree authorizes LWUA to appoint any of its personnel to sit in the board of directors of a water district that has availed financial assistance from LWUA and any such personnel so appointed is entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges pertaining to a regular director. Okit on the one hand. "In Resolution No. "Unsatisfied. Catapusan in the ‘Beatwatch’ column of the 23 August 1994 issue of the Manila Bulletin that Water Districts are ‘milking cows’ of certain LWUA officials. and Rodolfo S. inter alia. Cabili and De Vera likewise questioned the authority of the CSC to act upon the complaint filed by LEAP on the ground that the complaint was not under oath. "In Resolution No. that sans any specific guidelines on remuneration. "In his comment to LEAP’s complaint. 95-4073 dated 11 July 1995. LEAP likewise questioned the propriety and legality of the act of LWUA Deputy Administrator Rodolfo de Jesus in collecting/receiving per diems. Administrator De Vera thus contended. de Jesus. and other extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses from the Olongapo City Water District where he was designated as member of the board of directors. the [CA] granted the motions for intervention and allowed intervenors-movants to file their respective petitions-in-intervention. the CSC denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed Resolution No. aside from what he was already receiving from his present position. The CSC based its ruling on Section 8. discretionary fund. Movants allege personal and legal interest in the legal issues and subject matter of the instant petition for being members of the board of directors. double or indirect compensation from said water district except per diems pursuant to Section 13 of PD 198. 95-4073. "Intervenors. in addition to what he regularly and normally receives as a personnel of LWUA. in essence. essentially support the legality of the benefits granted to them by law and/or pertinent LWUA Resolutions in their capacity as members of the . double or indirect compensation.
in view of the proscription on double compensation. as well as medical and dental benefits. The CA held that Section 13 of PD 198 expressly allowed the directors of water districts to be granted per diems. since they were already receiving those benefits as regular employees of the LWUA. Travel Allowance. Christmas Bonus. in view of the directors’ role in helping the financially strapped water district regain its losses. and (3) whether the 6th board members already enjoyed the same benefits as those received by the regular employees of the LWUA. . remunerative.which thereby constituted an exception to the constitutional prohibition on double compensation. is not jurisdictional in nature. It ruled that the grant of Christmas bonuses and cash gifts to the appointed 6th members of the boards of directors must be disallowed."7 Ruling of the Court of Appeals Tackling the procedural issue first. Lastly. These benefits include Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA). cash gifts and productivity incentive bonuses were described by the CA as essentially gratuitous in nature. the CA gave the qualification that. unless the LWUA had already granted the same benefits to its employees tasked to sit as the 6th members of the boards of directors. Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA) and travel allowances were found to be. as amended.8 Issues Petitioners raise the following issues for our consideration: I. Medical/Dental Benefit and Productivity Incentive Pay. "Whether or not Public Respondent Civil Service Commission has plenary jurisdiction to motu proprio construe P. the grant of Christmas bonuses. The grant of a uniform allowance might have been allowed if the directors ordinarily wore uniforms in the discharge of their functions. hence. Strict compliance with these formal requisites may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of substantial justice. Uniform Allowance. the LWUA-designated 6th members of the boards of defaulting water districts were not automatically entitled to the same compensation and benefit package ordinarily granted to regular members of the board of directors. the present petitioners were deemed to have waived their objection to the procedural defect when they failed to raise it seasonably. Furthermore. 198. Modifying the Resolution of the CSC. by their nature. Found to be non-remunerative in character and thus constitutionally infirm was the grant to the directors of Extraordinary Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) and rice allowances. Extra-ordinary Miscellaneous Expenses (EME). On the other hand. verified and sworn to by the complainant. (2) their nature. the CA said that the provision requiring an administrative complaint to be in writing. Cash Gift.board of directors of water districts. Hence.D. Allowing those benefits would depend on the following: (1) whether they were expressly allowed by law. they were not deemed included in the prohibition. the grant of productivity incentive bonuses was allowed. Rice Allowance. this Petition.
personnel training. prohibits LWUA-designated representatives to the Boards of WDs to receive certain allowances and benefits on top of regular per diems.’ with power to prescribe minimum standards and regulations regarding maintenance.13 this Court ruled that it was the COA that had the power to determine the legality and regularity of the grant of allowances and benefits to LWUA-designated members of the boards of water districts.10 petitioners contend that it is the LWUA. this Court held that proceedings for the dissolution of water districts should be lodged with the regular courts. to derogate the broad and extensive powers granted by the Constitution to a constitutional commission like the CSC. development and financing of local water utilities.II. For the Court to sustain them would be to allow the board of an administrative agency. "Whether or not the designated representatives of LWUA to the Boards of WDs are liable to refund certain allowances and bonuses which are found in violation of Sec. First Issue: Jurisdiction of the CSC Petitioners argue that the CSC had no plenary jurisdiction to construe any provision of PD 198. the task of safeguarding the proper use of government funds rests primarily with the Commission on Audit (COA).12 Parenthetically. that case is not in point and will not convince this Court to sustain the claim of petitioners. monitor and evaluate local water standards. motu proprio. including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters. In reaching this conclusion."11 Clearly."9 The Court’s Ruling The Petition is partly meritorious. operation.D. accounting and fiscal practices for local water utilities. 13 of PD 198. We disagree. on matters pertaining to compensation and other benefits of water district directors. not the CSC. 13 of P. as already pointed out. plenary jurisdiction to construe Section 13 of PD 198. They allege that the CSC usurped the functions of the LWUA in exercising. 198. In the cited case. as amended. "Whether or not Sec. which it may review to establish compliance with the provisions of PD 198 x x x. district annexation and deannexation whenever economically warranted. In De Jesus v. Relying on Marilao Water Consumers Association v. Mandated by the Constitution14 to audit all government agencies. joint investment and operations. the COA is vested with "the authority to determine . It is. as amended. and effect systems integration. to furnish technical assistance and personnel training programs therefor. Intermediate Appellate Court. The LWUA has quasi-judicial power only as regards rates or charges fixed by water districts. Commission on Audit. as amended. it thus discussed the functions and powers of the LWUA as follows: "The LWUA does not appear to have any adjudicatory functions. that has the power to issue rules and regulations for the effective implementation of the law under which water districts operate and function. III. by merely issuing a resolution. ‘primarily a specialized lending institution for the promotion.
"19 It must be pointed out that the present controversy originated from an administrative case filed with the CSC for violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713). they are under the jurisdiction of the CSC. In case of conflicting rulings. This Court has consistently ruled that water districts are government-owned and -controlled corporations with original charters. to be determined by the board. Pobre. subdivisions. No director shall receive other compensation for services to the district. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system. in relation to that case pending before it. responsiveness. Necessarily." Section 3 is deemed to include the power to "promulgate and enforce policies on personnel actions.Each director shall receive a per diem. and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability."17 The present case involves the acts of LWUA officials who are concurrently designated as members of the boards of directors of water districts. integrity. Second Issue: Allowances and Benefits Other Than Per Diems Prohibited The compensation of directors of water districts is governed by Section 13 of PD 198. and courtesy in the civil service. Settled is the rule that when a law confers jurisdiction. Neither one may claim dominance over the others. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs.18 Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution provides as follows: "SEC.whether government entities comply with laws and regulations in disbursing government funds. 13. and agencies of the Government. but no director shall receive per diems in any given month in excess of the equivalent of the total per diems of four meetings in any given month. for each meeting of the board actually attended by him. . The Civil Service Commission. all the incidental powers necessary for its effective20 exercise are included in the conferment. since they have been created pursuant to PD 198. the Court recognized an instance in which the COA had concurrent jurisdiction with the CSC. shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale. . 2. progressiveness."15 In Civil Service Commission v.16 however. integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks. Hence. Compensation. and to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of government funds. the CSC and the Commission on Elections are equally pre-eminent in their respective spheres. including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. the provisions of PD 198. "SEC. The Court ruled as follows: "The COA. it was incumbent on the CSC to construe. as amended. it is the Judiciary which interprets the meaning of the law and ascertains which view shall prevail. 3. as the central personnel agency of the Government. which reads: "Sec. (1) The civil service embraces all branches. efficiency. instrumentalities.
petitioners argue that the term "compensation" as used in Section 13 of PD 198 does not include RATA. SO ORDERED. Petitioners had no knowledge that such payment was without legal basis. words and phrases in a statute must be given their natural. Thus. This issue has been settled in several other cases23 beginning with De Jesus v. 313 authorized such payment. EME. Commission on Audit. rice allowances. due regard being given to the context in which the words and phrases are used. and. uniform allowances. providing ‘No director shall receive other compensation’ than the amount provided for per diems." (Emphasis supplied) Contrary to the interpretation of the CSC. being in good faith. and productivity incentive bonuses already received by them in good faith as members of the boards of directors of water districts."22 Third Issue: Refund of Allowances and Benefits Although neither the CSC nor the CA ordered them to refund the monetary allowances and benefits found to be in violation of Section 13 of PD 198. By specifying the compensation which a director is entitled to receive and by limiting the amount he/she is allowed to receive in a month. . Commission on Audit. as follows: "Under §13 of this Decree."Any per diem in excess of P50 shall be subject to approval of the Administration. with the MODIFICATION that petitioners need not refund the Representation and Transportation Allowances (RATA).21 which we quote in part. per diem is precisely intended to be the compensation of members of [the] board of directors of water districts. Petitioners here received the additional allowances and bonuses in good faith under the honest belief that LWUA Board Resolution No. Whether the per diem is the only compensation allowed for directors of water districts is a question that has already been settled in Baybay Water District v. the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Commission on Audit. WHEREFORE. Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME). bonuses and other benefits. the Court had not yet decided Baybay Water District. the law quite clearly indicates that directors of water districts are authorized to receive only the per diem authorized by law and no other compensation or allowance in whatever form.26 the present petitioners need not refund the allowances and bonuses they have already received in good faith. ordinary. in the same paragraph. Christmas bonuses and cash gifts. Indeed. medical and dental benefits. The July 11.24 in which this Court pronounced thus: "x x x. 1995 Resolution of the CSC is REINSTATED. No pronouncements as to costs. At the time petitioners received the additional allowances and bonuses."25 Considering that the instant controversy had also arisen prior to the promulgation of Baybay Water District v. and commonly-accepted meaning. Travel Allowances. petitioners assert that they should not be required to do so. because they had received those benefits in good faith. petitioners need not refund the allowances and bonuses they received but disallowed by the COA.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §13
 v. 
 v.