Araos v. Regala
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Presidential Decree No. 847 established a compensation scheme for Career Executive Service Officers (CESOs), generally stipulating that their salaries start at Grade 2, while non-CESOs start at Grade 1. Subsequent salary increases for non-CESOs were conditioned on completing the Career Executive Service Development Program. Memorandum Order No. 372 modified the CES ranking structure and salary schedule. Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 94-5840 provided that CESOs are entitled to the second step of their salary grade. Career Executive Service Board (CESB) Resolution No. 129 and Circular No. 12 further clarified that CESOs already receiving at least the second step due to merit or longevity prior to CSC Resolution No. 5840 were entitled to a one-step adjustment, retroactive to November 1994. Republic Act No. 8282 exempted the Social Security System (SSS) from Republic Act No. 6758 (Salary Standardization Law). Procedural History: In 1999, petitioners, employees of the SSS, were appointed or promoted to CESO ranks. In 2001, the SSS approved a resolution to grant a one-step salary increment to nine SSS CESOs. However, Memorandum Order No. 20 from the Office of the President suspended the grant of salary increases and new benefits for senior officers in government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) and government financial institutions (GFIs) not following the Salary Standardization Law (SSL), unless approved by the President. The Commission on Audit and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel advised against implementing the one-step salary increment without presidential approval. The SSS recommended the approval to the Office of the President, which was referred to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The DBM opined that CSC Resolution No. 94-5840 did not apply to SSS and other SSL-exempt agencies. Despite repeated requests, the SSS management did not release the salary adjustment. Consequently, the petitioners filed a petition for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, seeking to compel the Social Security System (SSS) to implement a one-step salary increment due to them by virtue of their Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) ranks. The RTC dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. The petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing for their entitlement to the one-step salary adjustment. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, finding that the petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to the increment and that CESB Circular No. 12, which provided the basis for the adjustment, was unenforceable due to non-filing with the University of the Philippines Law Center.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners are entitled to a one-step salary increment as Career Executive Service Officers (CESOs). Whether CESB Circular No. 12 is enforceable.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to a one-step salary increment: For mandamus to issue, the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the claim sought. The Court found that the petitioners failed to establish that they were already receiving the second step of the salary grade of their ranks when they were appointed or promoted to CESO ranks in 1999, a condition set forth in CESB Circular No. 12. Furthermore, the Court noted that the intention of the law was to maintain the distinction between CESOs and non-CESOs, and without the increment, a CESO already receiving the second step due to longevity or merit would be no different from a similarly situated non-CESO. Even if the one-step salary increment were not covered by the suspension in Memorandum Order No. 20, petitioners still had to satisfy the conditions established by CESB Circular No. 12. The Court also pointed out that the SSS is exempt from the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) under Republic Act No. 8282, and the DBM opined that CSC Resolution No. 94-5840, which is based on the SSL, does not apply to SSL-exempt agencies like the SSS. On the enforceability of CESB Circular No. 12: The Court held that CESB Circular No. 12 is unenforceable because it failed to comply with the filing requirements under Sections 3 and 4 of Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987. Specifically, the CESB failed to file three certified copies of CESB Circular No. 12 with the University of the Philippines Law Center. As such, the circular had not yet taken effect and could not be the basis of any sanction or claim.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus will not issue to enforce a right that is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. Furthermore, administrative rules and circulars that have not been filed with the University of the Philippines Law Center are unenforceable.