Unfortunately, however, the signing bonus in question did not qualify under Secs. Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Facts indubitably demonstrate that the grant in question is a signing bonus. In fact, they are duty-bound to understand and know the law that they are tasked to implement and their unexplained failure to do so barred them from claiming that they were acting in good faith in the performance of their duty. As they were not privy as to reason and motivation of the Board of Directors, they can properly rely on the presumption that the former acted regularly in the performance of their official duties in accepting the subject benefit. At the time petitioners received the additional allowances and bonuses, the Court had not yet decided Baybay Water District. The principle was enunciated as early as in the case of United States v. To stress, the requirement to pay the CNA Incentive at year end is precisely because it is only at the end of the year that the amount of savings generated from MOOE could be determined and could be used as funding of the intended CNA Incentive.
The COB is the budget of a GOCC or GFI, which consists of estimates of revenues, expenditures and borrowings and prepared prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and recommended by the governing board. To guarantee that the CNA Incentive would be exclusively funded by the savings generated from the implementation of cost-cutting measures, PSLMC imposed the following conditions:. JPA 5 dated November 4, , stating that the payment of the said contract signing bonus had been previously declared improper by this Court in Social Security System v. The officials and chiefs of offices concerned disbursed such incentive benefits in the honest belief that the amounts given were due to the recipients and the latter accept the same with gratitude, confident that they richly deserve such benefits. It must be emphasized however, that the grant of the CNA Signing bonus is no longer allowed. The relevant portions thereof state: Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
This is so, since it shall be sourced solely from savings from released Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses MOOE allotments for the year under review. As stated in Lumayna v. Issues With this petition, this Court is confronted with the task of ascertaining the real nature of the subject benefit. In a petition for certiorari, the burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the impugned order.
It was therefore incumbent upon the Board of Directors of MIAA to ensure that the requirements of such circular, which merely implements A. Considering the foregoing in conjunction with the respective submissions of both parties, this Court finds no compelling reason to reverse the assailed decision of the COA.
COA, which effectively illegalized the signing bonus for being inconsistent with the objectives of R. MIAA is not exempted from these directives.
The COB is the budget of a GOCC or GFI, which consists of estimates of revenues, expenditures and borrowings and prepared prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and recommended by the governing board. Consequently, only the remuneration which was being offered as of 1 Julyand which was then being enjoyed by incumbent SSS employees and officers, could be availed of exclusively by the same employees and officers separate from and independent of the prescribed standardized salary rates.
Subsequently, on December 27,former President Arroyo issued A. In this case, the MIAA employees who had no participation in the approval and release of the disallowed benefit accepted the same on the assumption that Resolution No.
In her letter dated December 19,11 Castillo alleged that:. That recommendation has remained, as it is, a mere recommendation. JPA declaring the subject benefit illegal, there was no effort on the part of its Board of Directors to oslmc the alleged mistake in nomenclature. Without further extrapolation, these amounts remain to be mere approximations resolugion the end of the year. Indeed, claims of well-meaning negligence, blunder or oversight can be self-serving and easily contrived.
Clearly, good faith is anchored on an honest belief that one is legally entitled to the benefit.
It was therefore, a sort of a signing bonus. The same is not true as far as the Board of Directors. There is no clear showing that the former secretary of DBM transcended the demarcations fixed by A.
This means that whatever salaries and other financial and non-financial inducements that the SSC was minded to fix for them, the compensation must comply with the terms of RA Tupasi Molina, decided inthus: Castillo Castilloappealed N. Such savings should be generated out of the cost-cutting measures identified in the CNAs and supplements thereto. Alternatively, if they acted on the belief that the benefit is a CNA Incentive, they were in no position to approve its funding without assuring themselves that the conditions imposed by PSLMC Resolution No.
By such regulations, of course, the law itself can not be extended. Accordingly, only the directors responsible for the passage of Resolution No.
The same is true as far as the concerned officers of MIAA are concerned. Moreover, prior to the issuance of AOM No. So seriws, however, as the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provision of the law, they are valid.
In the case at bar, however, the subject CNA Incentive was paid in August and October,four 4 or two 2 months before the end of the year, thus, as of that time it can be deduced that management has not yet determined its savings from MOOE.
Furthermore, their acceptance of the disallowed grant, in the absence of any competent proof of bad faith on their part, will not suffice to render liable for a refund.
CSC Quick Survey
Such being the case, indeed said payment cannot be considered as an Incentive Bonus, but in reality a Signing Bonus, which is no longer allowed to be given to rank-and-file employees of MIAA, much more to its officials. COA and the various issuances of the Executive Department prohibiting the grant of the signing bonus.
Commission on Audit, this Court held:. Favorable variance is Php While there are exceptions provided under Sections 12 and 17 of R. Favorable variance is Php million.
Please refer to the attached Supreme Court Decision.
Such requirement is likewise consistent with Section 5, Presidential Decree No. However, MIAA failed to sustain its claim of an existing conflict, which more than suggests that it is merely grasping at straws. Easily, such is a mere afterthought. The payment of signing bonus made by MIAA, therefore, was improper and has no legal basis. As they were psmc privy as to reason and motivation of the Board of Directors, they can properly rely on the presumption that the former acted regularly in the performance of their official duties in accepting the subject benefit.
In her letter dated December 19,11 Castillo pxlmc that: In fact, it was the Board of Directors of MIAA who acted beyond their jurisdiction and abused their authority to approve the benefits of MIAA officers and employees 29 when they authorized the payment of a benefit that has already been abrogated.
By specifying the time when the CNA Incentive may be released to the rank-and-file employees, the former DBM Secretary was merely supplying a detail necessary for the proper implementation of A. To stress, the requirement to pay the CNA Incentive at year end is precisely because it is only at the end of the year that the amount of savings generated from MOOE could be determined and could be used as funding of the intended CNA Incentive.
However, the said conflict is more imagined than real. However, as will be discussed below, departure from prevailing rules and regulations, whether by reason of ignorance or audacity, is inexcusable. MIAA had placed itself in a rather curious position by taking pzlmc is clearly a piece-meal approach.
This Court partially agrees with the COA.