14. Bitonio v Coa

8/12/2019 14. Bitonio v Coa

1/8

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 147392. March 12, 2004]

BENEDICTO ERNESTO R. BITONIO, JR., petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONON ADIT a!" CE#SO D. GANGAN, C$AIRMAN O% T$ECOMMISSION ON ADIT, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CA##EJO, SR., J.&

The instant petition filed under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court seeks theannulment of the Decision[1of the Commission on Audit !C"A# dated $anuar% &'( )''1den%in* the petitioner+s motion for the reconsideration of the C"A Notices ofDisallo,ance Nos- ./0''/01'1 !.# and ./0'1201'1 !.2# dated $ul% &1( 1../ and"cto3er .( 1../( respectivel%( involvin* theper diemsthe petitioner received from thehilippine Economic 5one Authorit% !E5A#- n order to avoid multiplicit% of suits( an

Amended etition[)dated Au*ust 16( )'') ,as later filed to include in the resolution ofthe instant petition Notice of Disallo,ance No- ./0''&01'1 !.6# dated $ul% &1( 1../,hich ,as 3elatedl% received 3% the petitioner on Au*ust 1&( )'')-

The antecedent facts are as follo,s7

n 1..4( petitioner Benedicto Ernesto R- Bitonio( $r- ,as appointed Director 8 ofthe Bureau of 9a3or Relations in the Department of 9a3or and Emplo%ment-

n a 9etter dated :a% 11( 1.. addressed to ;onora3le Ri


2/8

+abor and Employment the #epartment o" ,the- nterior and +ocal $oernment the

/ational Economic and #eelopment Authority and theBangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

one (1) representatie "rom the labor sector and one (1) representatie "rom the

inestor0business sector in the E2Z2/E.

!

3embers o" the Board shall receie aper diemo" not less than the amount e4uialent

to the representation and transportation alloances o" the members o" the Board

and0or as may be determined by the #epartment o" Bud%et and

3ana%ement'Provided, however That theper diemcollected per month does not

e5ceed the e4uialent o" "our (6) meetin%s.

As representative of the =ecretar% of 9a3or to the E5A( the petitioner ,asreceivin* aper diem for ever% 3oard meetin* he attended durin* the %ears 1.. to

1..2-

After a post audit of the E5A+s dis3ursement transactions( the C"A disallo,ed thepa%ment ofper diemsto the petitioner and thus issued the follo,in*7

!a# Notice of Disallo,ance No- ./0''/01'1 !.# dated $ul% &1( 1../ for the totalsum of )4('' coverin* the period of $ul%0Decem3er 1..>

!3# Notice of Disallo,ance No- ./0''&01'1 !.6# also dated $ul% &1( 1../ for atotal amount of 1''(''' coverin* the period of $anuar% 1..6 to $anuar%1..2>[4

!c# Notice of Disallo,ance No- ./0'1201'1 !.2# dated "cto3er .( 1../ for the

total amount of )1'(''' coverin* the period of ?e3ruar% 1..2 to $anuar%1../-

The uniform reason for the disallo,ance ,as stated in the Notices( as follo,s7

abinet members their deputies and assistants holdin% other o""ices in addition to

their primary o""ice and to receie compensation there"ore as declared

unconstitutional by the Supreme ourt in the iil +iberties 7nion s. E5ecutie

Secretary. #isalloance is in pursuance to 2A 3emorandum /o. 89:;;8.,>-

"n Novem3er )4( 1../( the petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration to theC"A on the follo,in* *rounds7

1. The Supreme ourt in its =esolution dated Au%ust ? 1881 on the motion "or

clari"ication "iled by the Solicitor $eneral modi"ied its earlier rulin% in

the Civil Liberties Union case hich limits the prohibition to abinet

Secretaries 7ndersecretaries and their Assistants. 2""icials %ien the rank
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn5


3/8

e4uialent to a Secretary 7ndersecretary or Assistant Secretary and other

appointie o""icials belo the rank o" Assistant Secretary are not coered by

the prohibition.

?. Section 11 o" =.A. /o. 981@ proides the le%al basis "or the moant to

receieper diem. Said la as enacted in 188> "our years a"ter the CivilLiberties Unioncase became "inal. n e5pressly authoriin%per diems

on%ress should be conclusiely presumed to hae been aare o" the

parameters o" the constitutional prohibition as interpreted in the Civil Liberties

Union case.,@-

"n $anuar% &'( )''1( the C"A rendered the assailed decision den%in* petitioner+smotion for reconsideration-

;ence( this petition-

The issue in this case is ,hether or not the C"A correctl% disallo,ed theperdiemsreceived 3% the petitioner for his attendance in the E5A Board of Directors+meetin*s as representative of the =ecretar% of 9a3or-

@e rule in the affirmative-

The C"A anchors the disallo,ance ofper diemsin the case of Civil Liberties Unionv.Executive Secretary[2,here the Court declared Eecutive "rder No- )/4 [/allo,in**overnment officials to hold multiple positions in *overnment( unconstitutional- Thus(Ca3inet =ecretaries( ndersecretaries( and their Assistant =ecretaries( are prohi3ited tohold other *overnment offices or positions in addition to their primar% positions and toreceive compensation therefor( ecept in cases ,here the Constitution epressl%

provides- The Court+s rulin* ,as in conformit% ,ith =ection 1&( Article 8 of the 1./2Constitution ,hich reads7

Sec. 1


4/8

ursuant to the Court+s rulin* in this case and the =enate Committee Report on theAccounta3ilit% of u3lic "fficers and nvesti*ations !Blue Ri33on#( [.the C"A issued:emorandum No- .20'&/ ,hich authori


5/8

The petitioner+s contentions are untena3le-

t must 3e noted that the petitioner+s presence in the E5A Board meetin*s is solel%3% virtue of his capacit% as representative of the =ecretar% of 9a3or- As the petitionerhimself admitted( there ,as no separate or special appointment for such position-[11=ince the =ecretar% of 9a3or is prohi3ited from receivin* compensation for his

additional office or emplo%ment( such prohi3ition like,ise applies to the petitioner ,hosat in the Board onl% in 3ehalf of the =ecretar% of 9a3or-

The petitioner+s case stands on all fours ,ith the case of Dela Cruz v. Commission on Audit-[1);ere( the Court upheld the C"A in disallo,in* the pa%mentof honorariaandper diemsto the officers concerned ,ho sat as mem3ers of the Boardof Directors of the National ;ousin* Authorit%- The officers concerned sat as alternatesof their superiors in an ex officiocapacit%- Citin* also the Civil Liberties Unioncase( theCourt eplained thus7

CThe ex-officioposition bein% actually and in le%al contemplation part o" the principal

o""ice it "ollos that the o""icial concerned has no ri%ht to receie additionalcompensation "or his serices in the said position. The reason is that these serices

are already paid "or and coered by the compensation attached to his principal

o""ice. t should be obious that i" say the Secretary o" *inance attends a meetin% o"

the 3onetary Board as an ex-officiomember thereo" he is actually and in le%al

contemplation per"ormin% the primary "unction o" his principal o""ice in de"inin%

policy in monetary bankin% matters hich come under the urisdiction o" his

department. *or such attendance there"ore he is not entitled to collect any e5tra

compensation hether it be in the "orm o" aper diemor an honorariumor an

alloance or some other such euphemism. By hateer name it is desi%nated such

additional compensation is prohibited by the onstitution.D

!

Since the E5ecutie #epartment Secretaries as ex-officio members o" the /FA

Board are prohibited "rom receiin% Ce5tra (additional) compensation hether it be

in the "orm o" aper diemor an honorariumor an alloance or some other such

euphemismD it "ollos that petitioners ho sit as their alternates cannot likeise be

entitled to receie such compensation. A contrary rule ould %ie petitioners a better

ri%ht than their principals. ,1 and ,hatever prohi3itions or restrictions the mem3er issu3ected( the representative is( like,ise( not eempted- Thus( his position as Director8 of the D"9E ,hich the petitioner claims is not covered 3% the constitutional
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/138489.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/138489.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/138489.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/nov2001/138489.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftn13


6/8

prohi3ition set 3% the Civil Liberties Union case is of no moment- The petitionerattended the 3oard meetin*s 3% the authorit% *iven to him 3% the =ecretar% of 9a3or tosit as his representative- f it ,ere not for such desi*nation( the petitioner ,ould nothave 3een in the Board at all-

There is also no merit in the alle*ation that the le*islature ,as certainl% a,are of the

parameters set 3% the Court ,hen it enacted R-A- No- 2.16( four !4# %ears after thefinalit% of the Civil Liberties Unioncase- The pa%ment ofper diems,as clearl% anepress *rant in favor of the mem3ers of the Board of Directors ,hich the petitioner isentitled to receive-

t is a 3asic tenet that an% le*islative enactment must not 3e repu*nant to thehi*hest la, of the land ,hich is the Constitution- No la, can render nu*ator% theConstitution 3ecause the Constitution is more superior to a statute- [14f a la, happens toinfrin*e upon or violate the fundamental la,( courts of ustice ma% step in to nullif% itseffectiveness- [1t is the task of the Court to see to it that the la, must conform to theConstitution- n the clarificator% resolution issued 3% the Court in the Civil Liberties

Union case on Au*ust 1( 1..1( the Court addressed the issue as to the etent of theeercise of le*islative prero*ative( to ,it7

The Solicitor $eneral ne5t asks' C5 5 5 may the #ecision then control or otherise

encroach on the e5clusie competence o" the le%islature to proide "unds "or a public

purpose in terms o" compensation or honorariaunder e5istin% las here in the

absence o" such proision said las ould otherise meet the terms o" the Ce5ception

by laGD A%ain the 4uestion is anchored on a misperception. t must be stressed that

the so:called Ce5clusie competence o" the le%islature to proide "unds "or a public

purposeD or to enact all types o" las "or that matter is not unlimited. Such

competence must be exercised within the framework of the fundamental lawfrom which the Legislature draws its power and with which the resulting

legislation or statute must conform. When the Court sets aside legislation for

being violative of the Constitution, it is not thereby substituting its wisdom for

that of the Legislature or encroaching upon the latters prerogative, but again

simply discharging its sacred task of safeguarding and upholding the paramount

law.

The framers of R-A- No- 2.16 must have reali


7/8

"ields' economics business public administration la mana%ement or their

e4uialent and ith at least ten (1;) years releant orkin% e5perience pre"erably in

the "ield o" mana%ement or public administration.

The director %eneral shall be assisted by three (


8/8

[1C"A Decision No- )''10'4 si*ned 3% Commissioner Celso D- an*an( Chairman( ,ithCommissioners Emmanuel :- Dalman and Raul C- ?lores concurrin*- *ollo,p- )2-

[) *ollo, p- ./-

[&AnnexFA(G *ollo,p- 1&-

[4ncluded per Amended etition-

[*ollo, pp- 1&601&/-

[6+d- at )/-

[21.4 =CRA &12 !1..1#-

[/F=ECT"N 1- Even if allo,ed 3% la, or 3% the ordinar% functions of his position( a mem3er of theCa3inet( undersecretar% or assistant secretar% or other appointive officials of the Eecutive Departmentma%( in addition to his primar% position( hold not more than t,o positions in the *overnment and*overnment corporations and receive the correspondin* compensation therefor> rovided( that this

limitation shall not appl% to ad hoc3odies or committees( or to 3oards( councils or 3odies of ,hich theresident is the Chairman-

[.*ollo, p- 141

[1'+d- at 1-

[11+d- at -

[1)&21 =CRA 12 !)''1#-

[1&+d- at 164-

[14AHuinov. C":E9EC,)4/ =CRA 4'' !1..#-

[1=ee arciav. :ata,6 =CRA 12 !1.2#-

[16Enacted on $une 1( 1...-

[12=ection 1( Repu3lic Act No- /24/-
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/147392.htm#_ftnref17

Documents

14. Bitonio v Coa