De Jesus v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), were receiving honoraria as members of the LWUA Board Secretariat and the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee prior to July 1, 1989. The core dispute revolves around the continued entitlement to these honoraria following the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6758. 2. Procedural History: Following the effectivity of Rep. Act 6758 and the issuance of Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10), respondent Leonardo Jamoralin, as corporate auditor, disallowed the payment of honoraria to the petitioners during post-audit. The petitioners appealed this disallowance to the Commission on Audit (COA), which upheld the validity and effectivity of DBM-CCC No. 10 and sanctioned the disallowance. Aggrieved by the COA's decision, the petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the COA's decision through a petition for certiorari. They argue that Paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 is void for being inconsistent with and repugnant to Section 12 of Rep. Act 6758, which it purports to implement. Furthermore, they contend that DBM-CCC No. 10 is ineffective due to its lack of publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation, a requirement for administrative rules and regulations that implement or enforce existing laws. The Solicitor General supports the petitioners' position regarding the invalidity of DBM-CCC No. 10.
Issue(s)
Whether DBM-CCC No. 10 is legally effective despite its lack of publication in the Official Gazette. Whether paragraph 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 can supplant or negate the express provisions of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Commission on Audit is SET ASIDE, and respondents are ordered to pass on audit the honoraria of petitioners. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of publication: The Court ruled that DBM-CCC No. 10 must be published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation to be effective and enforceable. Citing Tanada v. Tuvera and Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Torres, the Court held that administrative rules and regulations intended to implement or enforce an existing law require publication. DBM-CCC No. 10, which tended to deprive government workers of their allowances and additional compensation, was not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. Therefore, its non-publication rendered it ineffective. The Court emphasized that publication is a democratic precept and a rudiment of fairness and transparency, allowing affected individuals an opportunity to voice opposition. On the issue of consistency with RA 6758: Due to the ruling on the ineffectiveness of DBM-CCC No. 10 for lack of publication, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether paragraph 5.6 of the circular was inconsistent with Section 12 of RA 6758. The primary basis for granting the petition was the procedural defect of non-publication, which rendered the circular unenforceable.
Main Doctrine
Administrative rules and regulations, including circulars implementing a law, must be published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation to be effective and enforceable, especially when they tend to deprive government workers of allowances and additional compensation.