The Supreme Court ruled that government employees who were previously separated from service, received retirement benefits, and were later reinstated must prove that they refunded those benefits to have their prior years of service credited towards new retirement and incentive calculations. However, the court also clarified that when official records of these refunds are missing, the Commission on Audit (COA) can consider affidavits and other supporting circumstances to determine if the refund was indeed made. This decision highlights the importance of maintaining accurate records while ensuring fairness to employees who fulfilled their obligations in good faith.

When Lost Records Meet Reinstatement: Who Bears the Burden of Proof?

This case revolves around the claims of several former employees of the Philippine Sugar Institute (PHILSUGIN) and the Sugar Quota Administration (SQA) who were later reinstated in the Philippine Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM) and subsequently the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA). These employees had initially received retirement and incentive benefits upon the abolition of PHILSUGIN and SQA. A key condition of their reinstatement was that they refund these benefits. When the SRA underwent a rationalization program, a dispute arose concerning the computation of the employees’ new retirement and incentive benefits. The SRA withheld 25% of the benefits, arguing the employees failed to provide proof of refunding the initial benefits. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Commission on Audit (COA) erred in directing the SRA to release the withheld benefits, considering the employees’ claim that they had refunded the amounts through salary deductions.

The controversy stemmed from Executive Order No. 339, which mandated the rationalization of SRA operations. As a result, several employees, including the private respondents, were separated from service with the promise of retirement gratuity and incentives. The SRA calculated these incentives based on the employees’ creditable years of service. However, the SRA later discovered that there was no concrete documentation that the employees had refunded the benefits they received when PHILSUGIN and SQA were abolished. Consequently, the SRA recomputed the retirement benefits, only paying 75% of the initially calculated amount. The remaining 25% was withheld due to the lack of evidence of a refund. The employees insisted that they had indeed refunded the money through salary deductions when they were reinstated to PHILSUCOM.

The employees submitted affidavits from former SRA officials attesting to the fact that the refunds had been made. When the SRA denied the employees’ request, the employees turned to the Commission on Audit (COA) for resolution. The COA initially ruled that the affidavits were insufficient proof of the refund. However, on reconsideration, the COA reversed its decision and ordered the SRA to release the balance of the retirement benefits. The COA reasoned that the affidavits, combined with other circumstances, sufficiently demonstrated that the refunds had occurred. Aggrieved, the SRA elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, arguing that the COA had committed grave abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court affirmed the COA’s decision, holding that the COA had not committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated the basic principle that the burden of proving payment lies with the party asserting it. As the court stated,

“One who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.”

In this case, the employees claimed that they had refunded the benefits. Thus, they bore the initial responsibility of providing evidence of this payment. The court recognized that a receipt is generally the best evidence of payment. However, the employees explained that their payments were made through salary deductions, and the payroll records reflecting these deductions were in the possession of the SRA, which had not been produced.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that administrative agencies like the COA are not strictly bound by the technical rules of evidence. They can accept documents that might not be admissible in judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of the affidavits presented by the employees. The officials who executed these affidavits held key positions in the Personnel and Accounting Divisions of the SRA and its predecessor, PHILSUCOM. They were in a prime position to know whether the refunds had been made. More importantly, the Court noted the COA did not rely solely on the affidavits. The COA also considered other significant factors.

These factors included the fact that the employees were reinstated with the explicit condition that they refund the benefits. The Court noted that the SRA did not take any corrective actions to compel the refund, suggesting that the salary deductions were indeed enforced. Additionally, one of the employees had even been promoted, implying that the SRA was satisfied that all financial obligations had been met. Moreover, the annual audit reports for the past 30 years did not reflect any findings of unrefunded incentives. The Supreme Court agreed with the COA’s assessment, stating:

“Absence of record is different from saying there was no payment.”

The Court found that the SRA itself had computed the employees’ incentive and terminal leave benefits based on their creditable years of service, and this computation had been approved by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). This indicated that, at the time, the SRA believed that the employees had no outstanding financial accountability. The Supreme Court emphasized that the factual findings of administrative bodies, particularly those charged with specific expertise, are entitled to great weight. Absent a showing that these findings were based on an erroneous assessment of the evidence, they should not be disturbed. Considering all these factors, the Court concluded that the COA had not committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the release of the withheld benefits. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of going forward with the evidence had shifted to the SRA, which failed to present the payroll records that would have conclusively established whether or not the deductions had been made.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the COA erred in ordering the SRA to release the 25% balance of retirement benefits withheld from employees who claimed to have refunded prior benefits despite the lack of official records.
Who had the initial burden of proof?	The employees had the initial burden of proving that they had refunded the retirement and incentive benefits they received upon their initial separation from service.
What evidence did the employees present?	The employees presented affidavits from former SRA officials attesting to the fact that the refunds had been made through salary deductions.
Why were official records unavailable?	The official payroll records, which would have reflected the salary deductions, were in the possession of the SRA but could not be located due to the passage of time.
What factors did the COA consider in addition to the affidavits?	The COA considered that the employees were reinstated with the condition of refunding benefits, no corrective measures were taken for non-payment, an employee was promoted, audit reports were silent on unrefunded incentives, and the SRA initially computed benefits as if no accountability existed.
What is the significance of the COA not being strictly bound by the rules of evidence?	It means that the COA can consider various forms of evidence, including affidavits, and is not limited to only the most stringent forms of proof required in judicial proceedings.
What was the SRA’s argument?	The SRA argued that the affidavits were insufficient proof of refund, and that the COA made assumptions not based on the employees’ allegations.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court upheld the COA’s decision, stating that the COA had not committed grave abuse of discretion and that the SRA should release the withheld benefits.

This case emphasizes the importance of maintaining accurate records in government service, especially concerning financial transactions related to employee benefits. When records are missing, administrative bodies like the COA can consider various forms of evidence and circumstances to arrive at a just resolution. It also reinforces the principle that the burden of proof shifts to the party in possession of relevant information.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Sugar Regulatory Administration vs. Tormon, G.R. No. 195640, December 4, 2012