This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-06-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The NTA, through its then Administrator Carlitos S. Encarnacion, moved for the reconsideration of the said COA decision as it prayed for the lifting of the disallowance and the declaration that all NTA employees, regardless of the date of hiring are entitled to the EAIB. In the assailed COA Resolution No. 2003-109 dated July 17, 2003, however, the NTA's motion for reconsideration was denied. The COA cited Government Service Insurance System v. Commission on Audit,[8] where this Court stated that:… The date July 1, 1989 is important only for determining whether an employee is an incumbent and receiving the allowance prior to the law's effectivity in order to ascertain if such employee is qualified to its continued grant. …[9] | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The COA asserts that the ruling of the Court in G.R. No. 119385 is in consonance with Philippine Ports Authority v. COA,[16] Manila International Airport Authority v. COA,[17] Philippine International Trading Corp. v. COA,[18] Social Security System v. COA[19] and Government Service Insurance System v. COA,[20] where the Court invariably ruled that in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 6758, additional financial incentives may no longer be granted to government employees. It was, likewise, held in these cases that incumbent government employees as of July 1, 1989 shall continue to receive the non-integrated benefits that they have been receiving as of the said date so as not to upset the legislature's policy on non-diminution of pay and benefits. | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In Government Service Insurance System v. COA,[33] the Court held that the longevity pay and children's allowance granted by the said government financial institution to its employees prior to July 1, 1989 are non-integrated benefits and likened these benefits to the RATA received by the employees in PPA, in the sense that: "a) it is also a non-integrated allowance authorized to be continued for incumbents under Section 12, R.A. No. 6758; and b) the rate thereof did not consist of a definite amount but was subject to certain factors or stipulations that were nonetheless fixed before R.A. No. 6758 took effect."[34] Applying the ruling in PPA that July 1, 1989 is not determinative of the highest amount of the non-integrated benefit that an incumbent may receive but that the said date is important only to determine whether the employee was an incumbent and receiving the benefit prior to R.A. No. 6758 in order to ascertain if the employee is qualified to its continued grant, the Court upheld the increase in the amounts of longevity pay and children's allowance granted by the GSIS after July 1, 1989 to its employees who were incumbents at the time of the passage of R.A. No. 6758. The Court in GSIS elucidated this point in this wise:It is thus evident that in adjusting the amount of allowances mentioned above [referring to the longevity pay and children's allowance], petitioner GSIS was merely complying with the policy of non-diminution of pay and benefits enunciated in R.A. No. 6758. This policy does not only pertain specifically to the amount being received by the incumbent as of July 1,1989, but also to the terms and conditions attached to these benefits prior to the passage of the statute. Relative to this, it should be noted that respondent COA did not dispute the fact that these benefits, including the terms and conditions thereof, are part of a compensation package granted by the GSIS Board to incumbents even before R.A. No. 6758 took effect. In turn, this compensation package was incorporated in the 1978 GSIS Revised Compensation System approved by the President, upon recommendation of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). | |||||