Bitonio v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Benedicto Ernesto R. Bitonio, Jr., while serving as Director IV of the Bureau of Labor Relations, was designated as the Department of Labor and Employment's representative to the Board of Directors of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) in 1995. As such, he received per diems for attending PEZA Board meetings between 1995 and 1997. Following a post-audit, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued notices of disallowance for these per diems, citing COA Memorandum No. 97-038, which implemented Senate Committee Report No. 509 and was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary. The disallowance was premised on the prohibition against government officials, particularly those in the Cabinet and their deputies, from receiving additional compensation for holding multiple positions. Procedural History: The petitioner received three notices of disallowance from the COA: Notice of Disallowance No. 98-008-101 (95) for P24,500 (July-December 1995), Notice of Disallowance No. 98-003-101 (96) for P100,000 (January 1996-January 1997), and Notice of Disallowance No. 98-017-101 (97) for P210,000 (February 1997-January 1998). The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the COA, arguing that the Civil Liberties Union ruling was clarified to exclude officials like him and that Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7916, enacted after the said ruling, expressly authorized per diems. On January 30, 2001, the COA denied the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then filed the instant petition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: This petition, filed under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeks the annulment of the COA's decision denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The petitioner argues that he is entitled to the per diems because R.A. No. 7916, which expressly provides for such payments, was enacted after the Civil Liberties Union case and should be presumed to have considered the ruling. He also contends that his position as Director IV is not covered by the prohibition clarified in the Court's August 1, 1991 resolution. The petitioner seeks to have the COA's disallowance of his per diems declared invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Audit correctly disallowed the per diems received by the petitioner for his attendance in the PEZA Board of Directors' meetings. Whether Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7916, which provides for per diems, prevails over the ruling in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary and Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, affirming the decision of the Commission on Audit. The petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COA correctly disallowed the per diems: The Court held that the COA correctly disallowed the per diems. The petitioner attended the PEZA Board meetings solely in his capacity as the representative of the Secretary of Labor. As such, he sat in the Board in the same capacity as his principal. The prohibition against receiving additional compensation for holding multiple positions, as established in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, applies not only to Cabinet Secretaries but also to their representatives who sit in an ex officio capacity. Therefore, since the Secretary of Labor would be prohibited from receiving such compensation, his representative is likewise barred. On the issue of whether R.A. No. 7916 prevails over the constitutional prohibition: The Court emphasized that any legislative enactment must conform to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. While R.A. No. 7916, enacted after the Civil Liberties Union case, provided for per diems, this provision cannot override the constitutional prohibition against public officials holding multiple positions and receiving additional compensation therefor, unless expressly provided by the Constitution. The Court clarified that its power to set aside legislation violative of the Constitution is part of its duty to safeguard the paramount law, not an encroachment on legislative prerogative. The subsequent amendment of R.A. No. 7916 by R.A. No. 8748, which removed the provision for per diems and specified undersecretaries as board members, further indicated the legislative intent to align the law with constitutional mandates. The petitioner's claim that his position as Director IV was deemed irrelevant because his attendance was based on his designation as a representative, not on his primary office.
Main Doctrine
A government official designated to sit as a representative of a Cabinet Secretary on a board, in an ex officio capacity, is prohibited from receiving per diems or additional compensation for attendance in board meetings, as such prohibition extends to the representative of the official who is barred from receiving such compensation.