Borromeo v. Civil Service Commission
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jesus N. Borromeo, former Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), retired on April 1, 1986. He sought to have his terminal leave pay computed on the basis of his highest monthly salary plus Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA). The Commission on Audit (COA), in Decision No. 992, interposed no objection to this claim, citing previous similar cases. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM), however, denied the request, citing provisions that limit terminal leave computation to 'basic pay' or 'basic salary'. The CSC initially supported the petitioner but later, through Resolution No. 90-514 and Resolution No. 90-945, denied the claim, advising the petitioner to seek recourse from the Supreme Court. Procedural History: The petitioner sought reconsideration of the CSC resolutions denying his claim. The CSC denied reconsideration, stating the COA decision had no sufficient legal mooring and citing a letter from the former Court Administrator regarding the computation of terminal leave for members of the Judiciary. The Secretary of Budget and Management was impleaded as a respondent. The petitioner seeks the nullification of CSC Resolution Nos. 90-514 and 90-945. The Petition: The petitioner argues that the COA decision had become final and executory. The respondents, CSC and DBM, maintain that the COA decision was not final and that the determination of leave matters falls within the CSC's province, while DBM asserts its authority over fund releases.
Issue(s)
Whether the COA decision interposing no objection to the petitioner's claim for terminal leave pay, computed on the basis of salary plus allowances, had become final and executory. Whether the determination of the legality of claims on leave matters is exclusively within the province of the CSC. Whether Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) and Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) should be included in the computation of the petitioner's terminal leave pay.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. CSC Resolution Nos. 90-514 and 90-945 are set aside. The Secretary of Budget and Management is ordered to release the corresponding allotment and cash outlay for the terminal leave differential claimed by the petitioner. The terminal leave pay of qualified members of the Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions who retired or shall retire on or after the February, 1986 political upheaval shall be based on highest monthly salary plus COLA and RATA.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality of the COA decision: The Court ruled against the petitioner's assertion that the COA decision had become final and executory. While the COA decision stated it would interpose no objection, neither the CSC nor the DBM could be considered aggrieved parties who could file a petition for certiorari under Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution. The CSC had initially supported the petitioner's claim, and the DBM was not privy to the COA proceedings. The DBM, as the agency tasked with releasing funds, simply ignored the COA ruling with which it disagreed, as there was no clear authority for the COA to compel acceptance of its ruling in this specific instance. On the jurisdiction over leave matters: The Court found the respondent CSC's stance that it has exclusive authority over leave matters to the exclusion of the COA to be not well-taken. While the CSC is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of leave benefits, the duty to examine accounts and expenditures related to these benefits properly pertains to the COA. In cases involving government expenditures, neither the CSC nor the COA can claim exclusive domain. In instances of conflicting rulings between these commissions, it is the Judiciary that interprets the law and determines which view shall prevail. On the inclusion of COLA and RATA in terminal leave pay computation: The Court held that COLA and RATA should be included in the computation of terminal leave pay for members of the Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions. The Court reasoned that retirement laws are liberally construed in favor of the retiree. While Memorandum Order No. 1146 of November 20, 1980, was specific to certain officials, it provided persuasive value. More importantly, Administrative Order No. 444 extended to Constitutional Commissioners the same benefits enjoyed by retiring members of the Judiciary, which under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438, explicitly included allowances in the computation of the five-year gratuity. The Court applied the principle of uniformity, stating that the basis for computing retirement gratuities should also apply to terminal leave pay for those retiring under R.A. 910 as amended. The Court distinguished this from Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 186, where the basis was solely 'salary'. The Court also noted the incongruity of paying higher benefits for ordinary leave commutation than for terminal leave if allowances were excluded. Finally, the Court acknowledged the impact of Republic Act 6758, which mandated the integration of COLA into basic salary, and imposed a cut-off date for such claims to February 1986, following the change of government, due to practical and budgetary restraints.
Main Doctrine
Terminal leave pay for members of the Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions, who retired on or after February 1986, shall be computed based on the highest monthly salary plus Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) and Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), consistent with the computation of their retirement gratuity.