Key Takeaway: The Importance of Legal Compliance in Granting Employee Benefits

Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation v. Commission on Audit, G.R. Nos. 205490 & 218177, September 22, 2020

Imagine a government employee eagerly anticipating a comprehensive health benefit package, only to find out years later that some of these benefits were unauthorized and must be returned. This scenario played out in the Supreme Court case involving the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation (PSALM) and the Commission on Audit (COA). The central issue revolved around the legality of certain medical assistance benefits (MAB) granted to PSALM’s employees and their dependents, which were later disallowed by the COA.

The case stemmed from PSALM’s expansion of its health program beyond what was authorized by Administrative Order No. 402 (AO 402), which specifically outlined the scope of medical check-up benefits for government employees. PSALM’s expanded benefits, which included prescription drugs, dental and optometric treatments, and reimbursements for emergency cases, were challenged as being outside the legal framework established by AO 402.

Legal Context: Understanding the Framework of Government Health Benefits

The legal backbone of this case is AO 402, issued in 1998, which established a medical check-up program for government personnel. This order was designed to promote the health of government employees, thereby enhancing their efficiency and effectiveness in public service delivery. AO 402 specifically mentions that the program should include annual physical examinations and certain diagnostic tests like chest x-rays and complete blood counts.

Key Provisions of AO 402:

“SECTION 1. Establishment of the Annual Medical Check-up Program. An annual medical check-up for government officials and employees is hereby authorized to be established starting this year, in the meantime that this benefit is not yet integrated under the National Health Insurance Program being administered by the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC).”

Furthermore, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 33, series of 1997, also played a role in the legal context, emphasizing the importance of health programs for government employees. However, the principle of ejusdem generis—where general terms following specific ones are interpreted to include only items of the same class—was crucial in determining the scope of allowable benefits under AO 402.

These legal frameworks highlight the necessity for government agencies to adhere strictly to the authorized benefits, as any deviation could lead to disallowance and potential liability for both the approving officers and the recipients.

Case Breakdown: The Journey from Approval to Disallowance

PSALM’s journey began with the approval of Board Resolution No. 06-46 in 2006, which established a health maintenance program in line with AO 402. However, subsequent resolutions in 2007 and 2008 expanded the program to include additional benefits like prescription drugs and reimbursements, which were not explicitly authorized under AO 402.

In 2008 and 2009, PSALM disbursed funds for these expanded benefits, leading to notices of disallowance from the COA. The COA argued that the benefits exceeded the scope of AO 402 and were not supported by sufficient legal authority. PSALM appealed these decisions, but both the COA-Cluster Director and the COA-Commission Proper upheld the disallowances.

The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the COA’s findings, emphasizing that the expanded benefits were unauthorized under AO 402. The Court highlighted the following key points:

• The benefits granted by PSALM, such as dermatological and dental treatments, were not diagnostic in nature and thus fell outside the scope of AO 402.
• The inclusion of employees’ dependents as beneficiaries was also unauthorized, as AO 402 specifically catered to government employees only.
• The Court noted that the approving officers were grossly negligent for expanding the benefits without proper legal basis, especially after receiving prior notices of disallowance.

Direct quotes from the Court’s reasoning include:

“The expanded medical assistance benefits granted to PSALM employees in 2008 and 2009 which went beyond the diagnostic procedures specified by AO 402 and PSALM Board Resolution No. 06-46. They even include the purchase of over the counter drugs, prescription drugs, payment of consultation fees, reimbursement of expenses in emergency and special cases and situations, optometric procedures, dental procedures like retainers and braces, and dermatological laser treatments.”

“The families or dependents of qualified government employees concerned are not included. What is not included is deemed excluded. Exchisio unios est exclusio alterius.“

Practical Implications: Navigating Employee Benefits and Legal Compliance

This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to legal frameworks when granting employee benefits in government agencies. For similar cases moving forward, agencies must ensure that any benefits provided align closely with the specific provisions of relevant laws and regulations.

Practical Advice for Agencies:

• Conduct thorough legal reviews before implementing or expanding any employee benefit programs.
• Ensure that all benefits fall within the scope of authorized programs and do not extend to unauthorized recipients like dependents.
• Maintain clear documentation and seek legal opinions to support the legality of benefit programs.

Key Lessons:

• Adherence to legal frameworks is crucial to avoid disallowances and potential liabilities.
• Agencies should exercise due diligence and consider the principle of ejusdem generis when interpreting the scope of benefits.
• Employees and approving officers must be aware of the potential consequences of receiving or approving unauthorized benefits.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the consequences of granting unauthorized employee benefits in government agencies?

Unauthorized benefits can lead to disallowance by the COA, requiring both the approving officers and recipients to return the disbursed amounts.

Can government agencies expand health benefits beyond what is specified in AO 402?

Any expansion must be within the scope of AO 402 and supported by legal authority. Benefits not aligned with the diagnostic procedures outlined in AO 402 are likely to be disallowed.

What role does the principle of ejusdem generis play in interpreting employee benefits?

This principle ensures that any additional benefits granted must be of the same class or nature as those specifically mentioned in the legal framework, such as diagnostic procedures under AO 402.

Are employees liable for returning unauthorized benefits even if received in good faith?

Yes, under the principle of solutio indebiti, employees must return unauthorized benefits received, unless they can prove the benefits were given in consideration of services rendered.

How can government agencies ensure compliance with legal frameworks when granting benefits?

Agencies should consult legal experts, review relevant statutes and regulations, and document the legal basis for any benefits before implementation.

ASG Law specializes in employment and administrative law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.