Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • De Jesus Vs COA

    Uploaded by

    Mac
    361 views1 page
    DBM-CCC No. 10, which discontinued allowances and fringe benefits for certain government employees, was ruled to have no legal force or effect because it was not published in the Official Gazette as required. Publication is necessary for administrative circulars that implement existing laws, to inform those affected and allow opportunity for input. As the Circular was not valid due to lack of publication, the Court did not need to address other issues regarding its consistency with the law it aimed to implement. The petition challenging the disallowance of honoraria payments pursuant to the invalid Circular was granted.

    Original Description:

    Admin

    Original Title

    De Jesus vs COA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    DBM-CCC No. 10, which discontinued allowances and fringe benefits for certain government employees, was ruled to have no legal force or effect because it was not published in the Official Gazette as required. Publication is necessary for administrative circulars that implement existing laws, to inform those affected and allow opportunity for input. As the Circular was not valid due to lack of publication, the Court did not need to address other issues regarding its consistency with the law it aimed to implement. The petition challenging the disallowance of honoraria payments pursuant to the invalid Circular was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    361 views1 page

    De Jesus Vs COA

    Uploaded by

    Mac
    DBM-CCC No. 10, which discontinued allowances and fringe benefits for certain government employees, was ruled to have no legal force or effect because it was not published in the Official Gazette as required. Publication is necessary for administrative circulars that implement existing laws, to inform those affected and allow opportunity for input. As the Circular was not valid due to lack of publication, the Court did not need to address other issues regarding its consistency with the law it aimed to implement. The petition challenging the disallowance of honoraria payments pursuant to the invalid Circular was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DE JESUS V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. NO. 109023, AUGUST 12, 1998.

    FACTS
    :Petitioners are employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). On July 1, 1989,Republic
    Act No. 6758 "An Act Prescribing A Revised Compensation and Position ClassificationSystem in the
    Government and For Other Purposes", took effect. Section 12 of said lawprovides for the consolidation of
    allowances and additional compensation into standardizedsalary rates. Certain additional compensations,
    however, were exempted from consolidation.Prior to this, they were receiving honoraria as designated
    members of the LWUA BoardSecretariat and the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee. To
    implement RA 6758,the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation
    Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10), discontinuing without qualification effective November 1, 1989,
    allallowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary.Pursuant to said Circular, respondent
    Leonardo Jamoralin, as corporate auditor, disallowed onpost audit, the payment of honoraria to the herein
    petitioners. Petitioners appealed to theCOA, questioning the validity and enforceability of DBM-CCC No.
    10. They contend that theCircular is inconsistent with the provisions of Rep. Act 6758 (the law it is
    supposed toimplement) and, therefore, void. And it is without force and effect because it was notpublished
    in the Official Gazette.COA upheld the validity and effectivity of DBM-CCC No. 10. Petitioners elevated
    the case tothe Supreme Court. The Solicitor General supported the petitioners, saying that Sec. 5.6 of
    DBM-CCC No. 10 is anullity for being inconsistent with and repugnant to the very law it is intended to
    implement. The DBM Secretary asserted that the honoraria in question are considered included in thebasic
    salary, for the reason that they are not listed as exceptions under Sec. 12 of Rep. Act6758.

    ISSUE: Whether or not DBM-CCC No. 10 has legal force or effect despite its lack of publication in the
    Official Gazette

    RULING:

    No. Following the doctrine enunciated in Tanada v. Tuvera (146 SCRA 446), publication in the Official
    Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines is required since DBM-CCC No. 10 is in
    the nature of an administrative circular the purpose of which is to enforce or implement an existing law.
    Stated differently, to be effective and enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must go through the requisite
    publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. It is clear that
    DBM-CCC No. 10 is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. Before the said circular under attack
    may be permitted to substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees concerned
    should be apprised and alerted by the publication of subject circular in the Official Gazette or in a
    newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines — to the end that they be given amplest opportunity to
    voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate their stance on the matter. This approach is
    more in keeping with democratic precepts and rudiments of fairness and transparency. The ineffectiveness
    of the Circular makes resolution of the other issues at bar unnecessary. Petition is granted.

    You might also like