ASG Law

Tag: Salary Standardization Law

  • Monetized Leave Credits: Can Government Banks Deviate from Standard Compensation Laws?

    Limits on Government Bank Autonomy: Understanding Compensation Rules for Monetized Leave Credits

    G.R. No. 262193, July 11, 2023

    Imagine a government employee expecting a certain amount for their accumulated leave credits, only to find out later that the computation was incorrect, and they might have to return a portion of it. This scenario highlights the complexities surrounding compensation in government financial institutions, specifically the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). This case delves into whether DBP can independently define ‘gross monthly compensation’ for monetized leave credits, or if it must adhere to standard government regulations.

    Legal Framework for Employee Compensation in the Philippines

    Employee compensation in the Philippines, particularly within government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs), is governed by a complex interplay of laws, rules, and regulations. While certain GOCCs may have specific charters granting them some autonomy in setting compensation, this autonomy is not absolute.

    The Salary Standardization Law (SSL) serves as a foundational framework, aiming to standardize salary rates across government agencies. Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1597 further mandates presidential review, through the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), of the position classification and compensation plans of agencies exempt from the Office of Compensation and Position Classification. Memorandum Order (M.O.) No. 20 reinforces this, requiring presidential approval for any salary or compensation increases in GOCCs and government financial institutions (GFIs) not in accordance with the SSL.

    Key provisions define the scope of permissible compensation. For instance, Section 13 of the DBP’s Revised Charter grants its Board of Directors (BOD) the power to fix the remuneration and other emoluments of its employees. However, this power is not unfettered. The charter also states that DBP should endeavor to make its system conform as closely as possible with the principles under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

    Monetized Leave Credits (MLC) are governed by Civil Service Commission (CSC) rules and regulations. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 41, series of 1998, as amended, and DBM Budget Circular No. 2002-1 provide guidelines and formulas for calculating terminal leave benefits and MLC based on ‘monthly salary.’

    The case hinges on the interpretation of ‘monthly salary.’ Does it encompass only the basic pay, or can it include allowances and other benefits? The prevailing understanding, as practiced across government agencies, is that ‘monthly salary’ refers to the basic pay, excluding allowances/benefits.

    Section 13. Other Officers and Employees. – The Board of Directors shall provide for an organization and staff of officers and employees of the Bank and upon recommendation of the President of the Bank, fix their remunerations and other emoluments. All positions in the Bank shall be governed by the compensation, position classification system and qualification standards approved by the Board of Directors based on a comprehensive job analysis of actual duties and responsibilities. The compensation plan shall be comparable with the prevailing compensation plans in the private sector and shall be subject to periodic review by the Board of Directors once every two (2) years, without prejudice to yearly merit or increases based on the Bank’s productivity and profitability. The Bank shall, therefore, be exempt from existing laws, rules, and regulations on compensation, position classification and qualification standard. The Bank shall however, endeavor to make its system conform as closely as possible with the principles under Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758, as amended).

    DBP vs. COA: The Battle Over Leave Credit Computation

    The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) issued Circular No. 10 in 2005, amending the computation of the money value of leave credits (MVLC) for its employees. Instead of using the ‘highest monthly salary received,’ DBP used the ‘gross monthly cash compensation,’ which included basic salary, allowances, and other benefits.

    This decision led to a disallowance by the Commission on Audit (COA), arguing that DBP’s computation was contrary to Civil Service Commission (CSC) regulations and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1146, which defines ‘salary’ as basic pay excluding allowances.

    The case unfolded as follows:

    • 2005: DBP issued Circular No. 10, changing the basis for MVLC computation to ‘gross monthly cash compensation.’
    • 2006: COA issued an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM), questioning the legality of DBP’s computation.
    • 2007: COA issued Notices of Disallowance (NDs) to DBP officers and employees, totaling P26,182,467.36.
    • 2009: COA Legal Services Sector (LSS) affirmed the NDs, ordering DBP officials to refund the excess payments.
    • 2018: COA Commission Proper (CP) partially granted DBP’s appeal, affirming the NDs but excusing passive recipients from refunding in good faith.
    • 2022: COA CP denied DBP’s motion for reconsideration, requiring all recipients to refund the disallowed amounts.

    DBP argued that its Revised Charter granted it the authority to fix employee compensation. DBP also claimed that a post-facto approval by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (PGMA) legitimized its compensation plan.

    However, the COA rejected these arguments, stating that DBP’s authority was subject to existing CSC, DBM, and COA regulations. The COA also deemed PGMA’s approval invalid because it was made within the prohibited period before the May 2010 elections.

    “The COA CP ruled that DBP’s authority to fix the remunerations and emoluments of its employees is subject to existing CSC, DBM, and COA laws, rules, and regulations.”

    “As to the liability for the refund of the disallowed MVLC, the COA CP held that the obligation falls upon: (1) the DBP BOD who approved Board Resolution No. 71 dated February 10, 2005 for without their authorization the payment of MVLC could not be made; and (2) DBP officials who approved the payment as they were performing discretionary functions.”

    Implications for Government Financial Institutions

    This case underscores that government financial institutions (GFIs), despite having some autonomy in compensation matters, are still bound by the broader framework of laws and regulations governing public sector compensation. The ruling clarifies that the term “monthly salary” for purposes of MLC calculations generally refers to basic pay, excluding allowances and other benefits, unless explicitly authorized by law.

    For instance, if Landbank, another government bank, were to implement a similar policy of including allowances in the computation of MVLC without proper authorization, they could face similar disallowances from the COA.

    The Supreme Court, however, recognized that the Commission on Audit (COA) violated DBP’s right to speedy disposition of cases. For a total of 11 years, they were subjected to worry and distress that they might be liable to return P26,182,467.36 representing the disallowed amounts in the payment of the MVLC.

    Key Lessons

    • Autonomy is Limited: GFIs must recognize that their autonomy in compensation matters is not absolute and is subject to existing laws and regulations.
    • Compliance is Key: Strict adherence to CSC and DBM guidelines is crucial in computing employee benefits like MLC.
    • Presidential Approval: Any deviations from standard compensation practices must have the proper presidential approval, obtained outside prohibited periods.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is Monetized Leave Credit (MLC)?

    A: MLC is the payment in advance of the money value of an employee’s leave credits without actually going on leave.

    Q: What does ‘monthly salary’ mean for MLC computation?

    A: Generally, ‘monthly salary’ refers to the basic pay, excluding allowances and other benefits, unless explicitly authorized by law.

    Q: Can a GOCC independently define ‘monthly salary’ for MLC?

    A: No, GOCCs must adhere to existing CSC and DBM guidelines, even if their charter grants some autonomy in compensation matters.

    Q: What happens if a GOCC deviates from standard MLC computation?

    A: The COA may issue a Notice of Disallowance, requiring the responsible officers and employees to refund the excess payments.

    Q: Is presidential approval always enough to validate a compensation plan?

    A: No, presidential approval must be obtained outside the prohibited period before elections and must be in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

    Q: What is the liability of approving officers in case of disallowance?

    A: Approving and certifying officers who acted in good faith, in regular performance of official functions, and with the diligence of a good father of the family are not civilly liable to return the disallowed amount. However, those who acted in bad faith, malice, or gross negligence are solidarily liable to return the net disallowed amount.

    Q: What is the liability of recipients in case of disallowance?

    A: Recipients are liable to return the disallowed amounts respectively received by them unless they are able to show that the amounts they received were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered or the Court excuses them based on undue prejudice, social justice considerations, and other bona fide exceptions as it may determine on a case to case basis.

    Q: What factors are considered in determining whether a refund can be excused?

    A: The Court will evaluate the nature and purpose of the disallowed allowances and benefits, and consider the lapse of time between the receipt of the allowances and benefits, and the issuance of the notice of disallowance or any similar notice indicating its possible illegality or irregularity.

    ASG Law specializes in government regulations and compliance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Understanding the Limits of Employee Benefits in Philippine Government-Owned Corporations

    Key Takeaway: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Boundaries of Employee Benefits in Government-Owned Corporations

    Irene G. Ancheta, et al. v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 236725, February 02, 2021)

    In the bustling corridors of government-owned corporations in the Philippines, the promise of benefits like rice and medical allowances can be a beacon of hope for many employees. Yet, the case of Irene G. Ancheta and her fellow employees at the Subic Water District serves as a stark reminder that not all that glitters is gold. At the heart of this legal battle lies a fundamental question: Can employees hired after a specific date continue to receive benefits established before the Salary Standardization Law took effect?

    The Subic Water District, a government-owned corporation, found itself at the center of a dispute with the Commission on Audit (COA) over the legality of disbursing various benefits to its employees in 2010. The COA’s notice of disallowance hinged on the fact that these benefits were granted to employees hired after June 30, 1989, in violation of the Salary Standardization Law (RA No. 6758).

    Legal Context: Navigating the Salary Standardization Law

    The Salary Standardization Law, enacted on July 1, 1989, aimed to standardize the salaries and benefits of government employees across the board. This law was a response to the disparity in compensation among different government sectors. Under Section 12 of RA No. 6758, all allowances are deemed included in the standardized salary rate, with certain exceptions like representation and transportation allowances.

    However, the law also provided a cushion for existing employees. Those who were incumbents as of July 1, 1989, and were receiving additional compensations not integrated into the standardized salary, were allowed to continue receiving them. This provision was designed to prevent the sudden diminution of pay for long-serving employees.

    The law’s impact is not just a matter of numbers on a paycheck. For instance, consider a long-time employee at a government hospital who has been receiving a medical allowance for years. Under RA No. 6758, this allowance can continue, but a new hire would not be entitled to the same benefit.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of the Subic Water District Employees

    The story of Irene G. Ancheta and her colleagues began with the release of benefits totaling P3,354,123.50 in 2010. These included rice allowance, medical allowance, Christmas groceries, year-end financial assistance, mid-year bonus, and year-end bonus. However, the COA issued a notice of disallowance, arguing that these benefits were granted to employees hired after the critical date of June 30, 1989.

    The employees appealed to the COA Regional Office No. 3, which upheld the disallowance. The appeal then moved to the COA Proper, which affirmed the decision but modified the liability, excluding regular, casual, and contractual employees from refunding the amounts received.

    Undeterred, the employees sought relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that the benefits were authorized by letters from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). These letters suggested that benefits established before December 31, 1999, could continue to be granted to incumbents as of that date.

    The Supreme Court, however, was not swayed. It emphasized that the relevant date under RA No. 6758 is July 1, 1989, not December 31, 1999, as suggested by the DBM letters. The Court’s decision underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory date:

    ‘We stress that the Court has consistently construed the qualifying date to be July 1, 1989 or the effectivity date of RA No. 6758, in determining whether an employee was an incumbent and actually receiving the non-integrated remunerations to be continuously entitled to them.’

    The Court also addressed the issue of the approving and certifying officers’ liability. It found that they acted with gross negligence by relying on outdated board resolutions and DBM authorizations, despite clear legal precedents:

    ‘Ancheta and Rapsing’s reliance upon the DBM Letters, previous board resolutions, and dated authorizations fell short of the standard of good faith and diligence required in the discharge of their duties to sustain exoneration from solidary liability.’

    Practical Implications: Navigating Employee Benefits in the Public Sector

    This ruling serves as a critical reminder for government-owned corporations and their employees about the strict boundaries set by the Salary Standardization Law. It highlights the importance of understanding the legal framework governing employee benefits and the potential consequences of non-compliance.

    For businesses and organizations operating within the public sector, this case underscores the need for diligent review of existing policies and practices. It is crucial to ensure that any benefits offered align with the legal requirements set forth by RA No. 6758.

    Key Lessons:

    • Adhere strictly to the dates specified in RA No. 6758 when determining eligibility for benefits.
    • Regularly review and update internal policies to comply with current laws and regulations.
    • Ensure that approving and certifying officers are well-informed about legal precedents and current statutes to avoid liability.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the Salary Standardization Law?

    The Salary Standardization Law (RA No. 6758) is a Philippine law that standardizes the salaries and benefits of government employees, aiming to eliminate disparities in compensation.

    Who is considered an incumbent under RA No. 6758?

    An incumbent under RA No. 6758 is an employee who was in service as of July 1, 1989, and was receiving additional compensations not integrated into the standardized salary rate at that time.

    Can new employees receive benefits established before the law’s effectivity?

    No, new employees hired after July 1, 1989, are not entitled to benefits established before the law’s effectivity unless these benefits are integrated into the standardized salary rate.

    What happens if a government-owned corporation continues to grant unauthorized benefits?

    The corporation risks having these benefits disallowed by the COA, and approving and certifying officers may be held liable for the disallowed amounts.

    How can organizations ensure compliance with RA No. 6758?

    Organizations should regularly review their compensation policies, ensure that they adhere to the law’s provisions, and seek legal advice to stay updated on relevant case law and statutory changes.

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

  • Philippine GOCCs and Fiscal Autonomy: Navigating Compensation Rules After PhilHealth vs. COA

    Limits on Fiscal Autonomy: How GOCCs Must Adhere to Compensation Laws

    Philippine Health Insurance Corporation vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 253043, June 13, 2023

    Can government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) freely set salaries and benefits, or are they bound by national compensation standards? This question is crucial for GOCCs navigating their fiscal autonomy. A recent Supreme Court decision involving the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) clarifies the limits of this autonomy and underscores the importance of adhering to national compensation laws. This case highlights the need for GOCCs to balance their organizational independence with compliance to ensure lawful and transparent use of public funds.

    Understanding Fiscal Autonomy in the Philippines

    Fiscal autonomy grants government entities the power to manage their finances independently. However, this power is not absolute. GOCCs, while having some degree of financial independence, must still operate within the framework of laws like the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) and other regulations issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). These regulations ensure uniformity and prevent excessive or unauthorized spending of public funds.

    In the Philippines, the Commission on Audit (COA) is constitutionally mandated to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and expenditures of government entities, including GOCCs. This power ensures accountability and transparency in the use of public resources. COA’s decisions are generally upheld by the courts, recognizing its expertise in implementing financial laws and regulations.

    Key Legal Provisions:

    • Section 16(n) of Republic Act (RA) 7875: This provision grants PhilHealth the power “to organize its office, fix the compensation of and appoint personnel.” However, this is not a blanket check, and the Supreme Court found that this is subject to limitations.
    • Section 6 of Presidential Decree (PD) 1597: Requires GOCCs, even those exempt from Compensation and Position Classification Office (CPCO) rules, to report their compensation systems to the President through the DBM.

    Imagine a scenario where a GOCC, believing it has full fiscal autonomy, creates several high-paying positions without proper DBM approval. COA could disallow these expenditures, holding the approving officers personally liable for the unauthorized disbursements. This illustrates the importance of GOCCs understanding the boundaries of their fiscal autonomy.

    The PhilHealth Case: A Detailed Breakdown

    The case revolved around PhilHealth’s creation of the Corporate Secretary position and the subsequent appointment of Atty. Valentin C. Guanio. COA disallowed the salaries, allowances, and benefits paid to Atty. Guanio, arguing that the creation of the position lacked the necessary approval from the DBM. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with COA, clarifying the extent of GOCCs’ fiscal autonomy.

    Here’s a chronological account of the events:

    • 2008: PhilHealth Board of Directors (BOD) issued Resolution No. 1135, creating the Corporate Secretary position.
    • 2009: PhilHealth BOD approved Resolution No. 1301, appointing Atty. Guanio as Corporate Secretary with a specified salary grade.
    • 2010: COA Supervising Auditor issued an Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM), questioning the creation and filling of the Corporate Secretary position without DBM approval.
    • 2011: COA issued a Notice of Disallowance (ND) against the payment of Atty. Guanio’s salaries, allowances, and benefits, totaling P1,445,793.69.
    • 2012-2020: PhilHealth appealed the ND, but COA consistently upheld the disallowance, leading to the Supreme Court petition.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that while PhilHealth has the power to organize its office and appoint personnel, this power is not absolute. It must still comply with the SSL and other DBM regulations. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Phil. Health Insurance Corp. v. COA:

    “To sustain petitioners’ claim that it is the PHIC, and PHIC alone, that will ensure that its compensation system conforms with applicable law will result in an invalid delegation of legislative power, granting the PHIC unlimited authority to unilaterally fix its compensation structure. Certainly, such effect could not have been the intent of the legislature.”

    The Court found that PhilHealth failed to comply with the requirements for creating a new position, as outlined in DBM Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10-99. The Court stated:

    “The records of the case fail to show that PHIC complied with the aforementioned requirements when the PHIC BOD through their resolutions created the position of corporate secretary and the consequent appointment of Atty. Guanio to the position.”

    Atty. Guanio was initially absolved from refunding the disallowed amounts, however, the approving and certifying officers were initially held liable. But, because Atty Guanio was absolved by COA and it was already final, the Supreme Court modified that part of the decision, effectively excusing the approving and certifying officers from returning the disallowed amount. However, this absolution does not preclude administrative or criminal charges.

    Practical Implications for GOCCs

    This ruling has significant implications for GOCCs in the Philippines. It reinforces the principle that fiscal autonomy is not a license to disregard national compensation standards. GOCCs must ensure they obtain proper DBM approval for new positions and compensation packages. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of due diligence in interpreting and applying laws and regulations.

    Key Lessons:

    • Compliance is Key: GOCCs must adhere to the SSL and DBM regulations when setting compensation.
    • Seek DBM Approval: Obtain DBM approval for new positions and compensation packages.
    • Document Everything: Maintain thorough records of all approvals and justifications for compensation decisions.
    • Consult Legal Counsel: Engage legal experts to navigate complex compensation laws and regulations.

    For example, if a GOCC plans to increase employee benefits, it should first conduct a legal review to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations. Then, it should seek approval from the DBM before implementing the changes. By following these steps, GOCCs can avoid potential COA disallowances and ensure responsible use of public funds.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is fiscal autonomy for GOCCs?

    A: Fiscal autonomy grants GOCCs the power to manage their finances independently, including setting compensation. However, this power is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law.

    Q: What is the Salary Standardization Law (SSL)?

    A: The SSL is a law that standardizes the salaries of government employees, including those in GOCCs. It aims to ensure fairness and prevent excessive compensation.

    Q: What is the role of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)?

    A: The DBM oversees the budget of the Philippine government and issues regulations on compensation for government employees, including those in GOCCs.

    Q: What happens if a GOCC violates compensation laws?

    A: The Commission on Audit (COA) can disallow unauthorized expenditures, and the approving officers may be held personally liable for refunding the disallowed amounts.

    Q: What should GOCCs do to ensure compliance?

    A: GOCCs should conduct legal reviews, seek DBM approval for new positions and compensation packages, and maintain thorough records of all approvals and justifications.

    ASG Law specializes in government contracts and regulatory compliance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Limits on PhilHealth’s Fiscal Autonomy: Accountability in Public Spending

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) cannot unilaterally grant benefits and allowances to its employees without the approval of the President, emphasizing that PhilHealth’s fiscal autonomy is not absolute and is subject to existing laws and regulations. This decision reinforces the need for government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) to adhere to the Salary Standardization Law and other fiscal policies, ensuring transparency and accountability in the use of public funds. Ultimately, this ruling safeguards public funds by preventing unauthorized disbursements and holding accountable those responsible for improper spending.

    PhilHealth’s Balancing Act: Upholding Public Trust Amidst Claims of Fiscal Independence

    The case of Philippine Health Insurance Corporation v. Commission on Audit revolves around the disallowance of various benefits and allowances granted to PhilHealth employees from 2011 to 2013. The Commission on Audit (COA) issued several Notices of Disallowance (NDs) questioning the legality of these benefits, citing a lack of legal basis, excessiveness, and the absence of presidential approval. PhilHealth, however, argued that its charter grants it fiscal autonomy, allowing it to determine the compensation and benefits of its personnel. This claim of fiscal independence became the central legal question, challenging the extent to which GOCCs can independently manage their finances.

    PhilHealth anchored its defense on Section 16(n) of Republic Act No. 7875, as amended, which empowers the corporation to “organize its office, fix the compensation of and appoint personnel as may be deemed necessary.” They also cited Section 26 of the same act, asserting that these provisions provide an express grant of fiscal independence to PhilHealth’s Board of Directors. Furthermore, PhilHealth presented Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) opinions and executive communications from former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, arguing that these confirmed their fiscal authority. These arguments aimed to establish that the disallowed benefits were properly authorized and within PhilHealth’s discretion.

    However, the Supreme Court rejected PhilHealth’s arguments, emphasizing that the corporation’s fiscal autonomy is not absolute. The Court reiterated its previous rulings, stating that Section 16(n) of Republic Act No. 7875 does not grant PhilHealth an unbridled discretion to issue any and all kinds of allowances, circumscribed only by the provisions of its charter. As the Court pointed out, PhilHealth’s power to fix compensation and benefit schemes must be exercised in consonance with other existing laws, particularly Republic Act No. 6758, the Salary Standardization Law. The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that PhilHealth is not exempt from the application of the Salary Standardization Law.

    The Court also addressed PhilHealth’s reliance on OGCC opinions and executive communications, finding that these did not justify the grant of the disallowed benefits. Citing precedent, the Court clarified that OGCC opinions lack controlling force in the face of established legislation and jurisprudence. Additionally, the executive communications from President Macapagal-Arroyo pertained merely to the approval of PhilHealth’s Rationalization Plan, without any explicit confirmation regarding its fiscal independence. The Court emphasized that presidential approval of a new compensation and benefit scheme does not prevent the State from correcting the erroneous application of a statute.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court affirmed the necessity of presidential approval, upon the recommendation of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), for the grant of additional allowances and benefits. This requirement stems from Presidential Decree No. 1597, which mandates that allowances, honoraria, and other fringe benefits for government employees are subject to presidential approval. Because PhilHealth failed to obtain this requisite approval for the disallowed benefits, the Court found that the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the NDs. The benefits purportedly granted by virtue of a Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) also lacked the proper basis.

    The Court clarified that while the Public Sector Labor-Management Council (PSLMC) authorized the grant of CNA incentives, several qualifications applied. These incentives must be funded by savings generated from the implementation of cost-cutting measures, and actual operating income must meet or exceed targeted levels. Moreover, Administrative Order No. 135 required that CNA incentives be sourced solely from savings generated during the life of the CNA. In this case, the shuttle service and birthday gift allowances were paid for a specific period and did not meet the requirements of being a one-time benefit paid at the end of the year, sourced from savings. Thus, the COA’s disapproval of these benefits was deemed proper.

    Acknowledging the passage of Republic Act No. 11223, which classifies PhilHealth employees as public health workers, the Court ruled that the grant of longevity pay should be allowed. This law, enacted after the COA’s initial disallowance, retrospectively removes any legal impediment to treating PhilHealth personnel as public health workers and granting them corresponding benefits. However, the Court maintained that the payment of Welfare Support Assistance (WESA) or subsistence allowance lacked sufficient basis because the award of WESA is not a blanket award to all public health workers and that it is granted only to those who meet the requirements of Republic Act No. 7305 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

    Having established the propriety of the disallowances, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of liability for the disallowed amounts. Referencing the guidelines established in Madera v. Commission on Audit, the Court clarified the rules governing the refund of disallowed amounts. Recipients of the disallowed amounts, including approving or certifying officers who were also recipients, are liable to return the amounts they received. Approving officers who acted in bad faith, malice, or gross negligence are solidarily liable to return the disallowed amounts. However, certifying officers who merely attested to the availability of funds and completeness of documents are not solidarily liable, absent a showing of bad faith, malice, or gross negligence.

    The Court emphasized that the approving officers in this case could not claim good faith due to their disregard of applicable jurisprudence and COA directives. Given the prior rulings establishing the limits on PhilHealth’s authority to unilaterally fix its compensation structure, the approving officers’ failure to comply with these rulings constituted gross negligence, giving rise to solidary liability. However, the Court acknowledged that the records lacked clarity regarding which approving officer approved the specific benefits and allowances corresponding to each ND. Therefore, the Court directed the COA to clearly identify the specific PhilHealth members and officials who approved the disallowed benefits and allowances covered by each ND.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether PhilHealth has the authority to unilaterally grant benefits and allowances to its employees without presidential approval, based on its claim of fiscal autonomy.
    Did the Supreme Court uphold PhilHealth’s claim of fiscal autonomy? No, the Court rejected PhilHealth’s claim, stating that its fiscal autonomy is not absolute and is subject to existing laws like the Salary Standardization Law and the requirement for presidential approval for additional benefits.
    What is the Salary Standardization Law? The Salary Standardization Law (Republic Act No. 6758) prescribes a revised compensation and position classification system in the government, aiming to standardize salaries across different government agencies.
    What is required for GOCCs to grant additional allowances and benefits? GOCCs must obtain the approval of the President, upon recommendation of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), to grant additional allowances and benefits to their employees.
    Who is liable to refund the disallowed amounts? Recipients of the disallowed benefits and allowances are generally liable to return the amounts they received, while approving officers who acted in bad faith or gross negligence are solidarily liable. Certifying officers are generally not held liable unless they acted in bad faith.
    What did the Court say about the longevity pay? The Court reversed the disallowance of longevity pay, recognizing that Republic Act No. 11223 retrospectively classifies PhilHealth employees as public health workers, entitling them to longevity pay under Republic Act No. 7305.
    What was the basis for disallowing the shuttle service and birthday gift allowances? These allowances, purportedly granted under a Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA), were disallowed because they did not meet the requirements of being funded by savings generated from cost-cutting measures and paid as a one-time benefit at the end of the year.
    What action did the Court order regarding the approving officers? The Court directed the COA to clearly identify the specific PhilHealth members and officials who approved the disallowed benefits and allowances covered by each Notice of Disallowance.

    This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to established fiscal policies and legal requirements in the management of public funds. By clarifying the limits of PhilHealth’s fiscal autonomy and emphasizing accountability for unauthorized disbursements, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the need for transparency and prudence in government spending. It is crucial for government agencies and GOCCs to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations to avoid similar disallowances and uphold public trust.

    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: PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 258424, January 10, 2023

  • When Public Funds Meet Personal Expenses: Disallowing Extraordinary Expenses for Water District Officials

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission on Audit’s (COA) decision to disallow the payment of Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) to the General Manager of Pagsanjan Water District, holding that such expenses were not authorized under the applicable General Appropriations Act (GAA) and relevant circulars. The Court ruled that even if the expenses were received in good faith, the recipients are liable to return the disallowed amounts based on the principle of solutio indebiti. This decision reinforces the strict interpretation of allowable expenses for public officials, safeguarding public funds from unauthorized disbursements.

    Pagsanjan Water District’s EME: A Case of Unauthorized Disbursement?

    This case revolves around the grant of Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) to Engineer Alex C. Paguio, the General Manager of Pagsanjan Water District, a government-owned and controlled corporation operating in Laguna. From 2009 to 2010, Paguio received PHP 18,000.00 per month, charged to EME, based on Board Resolutions. The Commission on Audit (COA) issued a Notice of Disallowance, arguing that the payments violated the General Appropriations Act (GAA) and COA Circular No. 2006-01. The central legal question is whether the Board had the authority to grant these expenses, and whether Paguio and other officials are liable to refund the disallowed amounts.

    The petitioners, officials of Pagsanjan Water District, argued that the grant of EME was based on the Board’s authority to fix the General Manager’s compensation under Republic Act No. 9286. They contended that COA Circular No. 2006-01 validated the grant and that the allowance was made in good faith. However, the COA maintained that the GAA did not authorize EME for the General Manager’s position, and that the required receipts were not submitted.

    The Supreme Court emphasized the Commission on Audit’s broad powers over government funds. The COA is constitutionally mandated to ensure proper use of public resources and has the authority to disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures. The Court typically upholds COA decisions unless there is a clear lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

    The Court addressed the petitioners’ argument that Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 198, as amended by Republic Act No. 9286, granted the Board the power to fix the General Manager’s compensation. While acknowledging the Board’s authority, the Court clarified that this power is not absolute. The fixed compensation must align with the position classification system under the Salary Standardization Law. As emphasized in Engr. Manolito P. Mendoza v. Commission on Audit, the Salary Standardization Law applies to all government positions, including those in government-owned and controlled corporations unless explicitly exempted.

    The Salary Standardization Law integrates allowances into standardized salary rates, with specific exceptions. Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6758 outlines these exceptions: representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation as the DBM may determine. The Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) do not fall under these exceptions.

    The Court also examined the applicability of COA Circular No. 2006-01, which governs the disbursement of Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses in government-owned and controlled corporations. The circular states that the amount authorized in the corporate charters of GOCCs or the GAA should be the ceiling for these funds. Since Presidential Decree No. 198, as amended, does not authorize the Board to grant EME, the Court looked to the General Appropriations Act (GAA).

    The 2009 and 2010 GAAs list specific officials and those of equivalent rank authorized by the DBM who can claim reimbursement for EME. A general manager of a local water district is not among the listed officials, and the petitioners failed to prove that the position was authorized by the DBM as equivalent in rank. Therefore, there was no legal basis for granting the EME to Paguio.

    The Supreme Court rejected the argument that classifying salary grade 26 as the minimum for EME entitlement violated the uniformity and equal protection clauses. Reasonable classification is permitted under the equal protection clause. The categorization of local water districts based on factors like personnel, assets, revenues, and investments provides a substantial distinction justifying different treatment.

    Even assuming entitlement to EME, the payments were irregular. COA Circular No. 2006-01 mandates that EME payments be strictly on a reimbursable or non-commutable basis, supported by receipts or other documents evidencing disbursements. The payments to Paguio were not reimbursable and were supported by certifications, not receipts. The petitioners’ reliance on COA Circular No. 89-300, which allows certifications in lieu of receipts, was misplaced, as that circular applies only to National Government Agencies.

    Finally, the Court addressed the liability to return the disallowed amounts. The Rules on Return, as laid down in Madera v. Commission on Audit, dictate that recipients are liable to return disallowed amounts unless they can show the amounts were genuinely given for services rendered. The petitioners, including Paguio, Abarquez, Pabilonia, Velasco, Capistrano, and Bombay, were deemed solidarily liable for violating the GAA and COA regulations, lacking good faith in their actions.

    The Court rejected Paguio’s defense of good faith, noting that he approved the expenditures himself. It emphasized the principle of solutio indebiti, where a person who receives something without a right to demand it is obligated to return it. Even with good faith, the payee is liable to return the amount. There were no circumstances present that showed that the benefits were disallowed due to mere irregularities. This reinforces the responsibility of public officials to ensure compliance with financial regulations and the accountability for improper use of public funds.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the General Manager of Pagsanjan Water District was entitled to Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) and whether the approving officials were liable to refund the disallowed amounts.
    What is the Salary Standardization Law? The Salary Standardization Law (Republic Act No. 6758) standardizes the salary rates among government personnel, consolidating most allowances into the standardized salary. It aims to eliminate disparities in compensation among government employees.
    What is COA Circular No. 2006-01? COA Circular No. 2006-01 provides guidelines on the disbursement of Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses in government-owned and controlled corporations. It requires that payments be made on a reimbursable basis and supported by receipts or other documents evidencing disbursements.
    What is solutio indebiti? Solutio indebiti is a principle in civil law that obligates a person who receives something without a right to demand it to return it. In this context, it means that if a public official receives disallowed funds, they must return the money even if they acted in good faith.
    What is the significance of the Madera v. COA ruling? Madera v. COA (G.R. No. 244128, September 8, 2020) established the Rules on Return, which govern the liability of public officials to return disallowed amounts. It distinguishes between approving/certifying officers and recipients, outlining the conditions for their liability.
    Who is liable to return the disallowed amounts in this case? The General Manager (Paguio) is liable as the recipient of the disallowed amounts, based on the principle of solutio indebiti. The other officials, including members of the Board, are solidarily liable due to their gross negligence in approving the payments without legal basis.
    What is the effect of an Audit Observation Memorandum? An Audit Observation Memorandum serves as an early warning of potential irregularities. Receiving such a notice puts officials on alert, and continuing to make the same payments can negate a defense of good faith.
    What are Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses? Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME) are funds allocated to certain government officials for specific purposes, such as official entertainment, public relations, and other necessary expenses related to their position. These expenses must be authorized by law and properly documented.
    Does the decision mean that all water district officials will be denied benefits? No, benefits will not be denied. This decision emphasizes strict compliance with the law. The decision clarifies that compensation and benefits must be in accordance with the Salary Standardization Law, General Appropriations Act, and other applicable rules.

    This case serves as a crucial reminder for public officials to adhere strictly to financial regulations and to exercise due diligence in the disbursement of public funds. The ruling reinforces the importance of transparency and accountability in government spending, ensuring that public resources are used for their intended purposes.

    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: ENGINEER ALEX C. PAGUIO, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 242644, October 18, 2022

  • Double Compensation in Government: DBP Officers’ Allowances Under Scrutiny

    The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions filed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) against the Commission on Audit (COA), addressing the disallowance of certain allowances and benefits received by DBP officers. While the Court upheld COA’s decision that these additional compensations amounted to prohibited double compensation under the Constitution, it exonerated the approving and certifying officers from personal liability. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional restrictions on public officers’ compensation, while also considering the good faith of officials in the performance of their duties.

    Navigating the Murky Waters of Compensation: When Additional Benefits Became a Constitutional Issue for DBP

    The consolidated cases before the Supreme Court revolved around Notices of Disallowance (NDs) issued by the Commission on Audit (COA) against the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). These NDs pertained to allowances and benefits received by DBP officers and employees, specifically concerning additional compensation received by DBP officers acting as officers of DBP subsidiaries. The central question was whether these additional allowances constituted a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double compensation for public officers and employees.

    The root of the controversy stemmed from several Audit Observation Memoranda (AOM) issued by COA in 2007. These AOMs questioned the grant of additional allowances and fringe benefits to DBP officers serving in DBP subsidiaries, asserting that these payments constituted double compensation. COA pointed to DBM Circular Letter No. 2003-10 and Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1597, which require presidential approval for such allowances and prohibit additional bonuses unless authorized by law or the President. In response, DBP argued that its charter exempted it from these regulations and that the allowances were legitimate compensation for services rendered to its subsidiaries.

    Subsequently, COA issued ND No. SUB-2006-11 (06), disallowing a total of P1,629,303.34 in additional allowances and fringe benefits paid to DBP officers acting as officers of DBPDCI, DBPMC, and IGLF. This disallowance included director’s allowances, representation allowances, transportation allowances, reimbursable promotional allowances, honoraria, and gift certificates. DBP appealed the ND, but COA’s Legal Services Sector (LSS) denied the appeal, affirming the disallowance. DBP then filed a Memorandum of Appeal, later supplemented by a Manifestation and Motion, arguing that President Arroyo had confirmed the DBP Board of Directors’ authority to approve compensation plans, thus rendering the disallowance moot.

    On the other hand, for the years 2005 and 2006, DBP also granted additional bonuses and economic assistance to its officers and employees. These benefits were intended to help employees cope with rising economic difficulties. However, COA also questioned these grants, issuing AOMs and subsequent NDs. These NDs, specifically OA-2006-006 (06), EA-2006-005 (05 and 06), and Merit-2006-008 (06), disallowed officers’ allowances, economic assistance, and merit increases, totaling P106,599,716.93. DBP appealed these NDs as well, arguing that it had obtained presidential approval for the compensation plan. Despite DBP’s arguments, COA upheld the disallowances, asserting that the benefits lacked legal basis and that the presidential approval was invalid due to its issuance during the election period ban.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, focused on whether COA had committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NDs. A central point of contention was the alleged subsequent approval by President Arroyo of DBP’s Compensation Plan for 1999. DBP insisted that this approval cured any defects and rendered the disallowances moot. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing the constitutional proscription against double compensation found in Section 8, Article IX (B) of the Constitution. This provision states that no public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation unless specifically authorized by law.

    The Court underscored that the allowances and benefits paid to DBP officers, who already held permanent positions within DBP, constituted double compensation. This violated the principle that public office is a public trust and that government officials should not use their positions for personal gain. COA’s findings revealed that DBP officers were receiving similar benefits from both DBP and its subsidiaries, leading to the disallowance.

    However, the Court distinguished between the liability of the recipients of the disallowed benefits and the liability of the approving and certifying officers. Citing Madera v. Commission on Audit, the Court clarified that approving and certifying officers who acted in good faith, in the regular performance of their official functions, and with the diligence of a good father of the family are not civilly liable to return the disallowed amounts. This principle is rooted in Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987. The Court identified several badges of good faith that could absolve officers of liability, including certificates of availability of funds, in-house legal opinions, the absence of prior disallowances in similar cases, and reasonable textual interpretations of the law.

    In the DBP case, the Court found that the approving and certifying officers had acted in good faith, believing that the recipients were entitled to the allowances based on DBP’s by-laws and long-standing practices. The Court also noted the absence of prior disallowances in similar cases. Therefore, while upholding the disallowance of the benefits, the Court exonerated the approving and certifying officers from personal liability. This outcome balances the need to protect public funds with the recognition of the good faith efforts of public officials.

    The Court then addressed the disallowance of merit increases, the integration of officers’ allowances into basic pay, and the grant of economic assistance to DBP employees. It acknowledged COA’s constitutional mandate to examine and audit government revenues and expenditures and to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures. The Court affirmed that DBP BOD’s authority to fix personnel compensation was not absolute and had to conform to the principles of the Salary Standardization Law.

    The Court also addressed the issue of President Arroyo’s alleged approval of DBP’s compensation plan. While DBP argued that this approval validated the benefits, the Court disagreed. Citing Philippine Health Insurance Corp. v. Commission on Audit, the Court reiterated that presidential approval of a new compensation and benefit scheme does not prevent the State from correcting the erroneous application of a statute. Furthermore, the Court noted that President Arroyo’s approval was made during the prohibited election period, rendering it void under Section 261 (g)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code.

    Ultimately, the Court sustained the disallowance of the merit increases, integration of allowances, and economic assistance. However, as with the additional allowances, the Court held that the approving and certifying officers should not be held liable due to their good faith reliance on DBP’s charter and their belief that they were authorized to approve the compensation plan. It should be emphasized, however, that good faith on the part of the approving/certifying officers in granting such allowances does not make it legal or proper as would justify its continued grant.

    Finally, the Supreme Court clarified the liability of individual payees who received the disallowed allowances and benefits. Reaffirming the principles of solutio indebiti and unjust enrichment, the Court held that these individuals are obligated to return the amounts they personally received. However, it recognized that exceptions may apply in certain circumstances, such as when the amount disbursed was genuinely given in consideration of services rendered or when undue prejudice, social justice, or humanitarian considerations are present.

    The DBP officers who received the allowances and benefits are still obligated to return what they personally received. The Court reinforced its view that the receipt by the payees of disallowed benefits is one by mistake, thus creating an obligation on their part to return the same.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the additional allowances and benefits received by DBP officers constituted double compensation, violating constitutional restrictions. The Court also considered the validity of a presidential approval obtained during an election period.
    Did the Supreme Court uphold the disallowance of the benefits? Yes, the Supreme Court upheld the disallowance of the additional allowances, merit increases, economic assistance, and integration of officers’ allowances into basic pay. The Court found that these benefits lacked legal basis and violated constitutional prohibitions.
    Were the approving officers held liable for the disallowed amounts? No, the Supreme Court exonerated the approving and certifying officers from personal liability. The Court found that these officers had acted in good faith, relying on DBP’s charter and believing they were authorized to approve the compensation plans.
    What is the responsibility of the DBP officers who received the disallowed benefits? The DBP officers and employees who received the disallowed amounts were ordered to refund the amounts they received. The Court emphasized the principles of solutio indebiti and unjust enrichment.
    What is double compensation, and why is it prohibited? Double compensation refers to receiving additional, double, or indirect compensation for a public office. It is prohibited under the Constitution to ensure public office remains a public trust and to prevent officials from using their positions for personal gain.
    What is the significance of Presidential Decree No. 1597 in this case? Presidential Decree No. 1597 requires presidential approval for allowances and other fringe benefits granted to government employees. The absence of such approval was a key factor in the COA’s disallowance of the benefits.
    How did the election period ban affect the case? The presidential approval obtained by DBP was deemed invalid because it was made within 45 days before the 2010 national elections. This violated the Omnibus Election Code, which prohibits giving salary increases or remuneration during that period.
    What are the Madera Rules mentioned in the decision? The Madera Rules, established in Madera v. Commission on Audit, outline the guidelines for the liability of government officials and employees in cases involving disallowances. They distinguish between the liability of approving officers and recipients.
    What factors indicate “good faith” for approving officers in disallowance cases? Certificates of fund availability, in-house legal opinions, absence of similar disallowances, and reasonable textual interpretations of law can indicate good faith. If officers demonstrate good faith, they may be absolved of personal liability.

    This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to constitutional and statutory requirements regarding compensation for public officers and employees. While the Court recognized the good faith of the approving officers in this instance, it firmly upheld the disallowance of benefits that lacked legal basis. The ruling highlights the need for government-owned corporations to ensure that their compensation plans comply with the Salary Standardization Law and other relevant regulations.

    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: Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. Nos. 210965 & 217623, March 22, 2022

  • Diminution of Benefits: Understanding Government Employee Compensation and PCSO Board Authority

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Board’s authority to fix employee salaries and benefits is not absolute and must comply with civil service and compensation laws. Disallowed benefits, lacking proper legal basis, must be returned by approving officers found to be grossly negligent. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks in granting employee benefits within government agencies, ensuring responsible use of public funds.

    PCSO Benefits Under Scrutiny: Can Employee Perks Override Compensation Laws?

    This case revolves around the Commission on Audit’s (COA) disallowance of certain benefits granted to the personnel of the Laguna Provincial District Office (LPDO) of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). These benefits, including Christmas bonuses, weekly draw allowances, staple food allowances, hazard pay, cost of living allowances (COLA), and medicine allowances, amounted to P1,601,067.49. The COA argued that these benefits lacked legal basis and violated existing compensation laws, specifically Republic Act No. 6758, also known as the Salary Standardization Law (SSL).

    The PCSO, however, contended that the PCSO Board has the power to grant such benefits under Republic Act No. 1169, the PCSO Charter. They also argued that a letter from the Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., constituted post facto approval of these benefits. Furthermore, the PCSO claimed that disallowing these benefits would violate the principle of non-diminution of benefits, as they formed part of the employees’ compensation. The central legal question is whether the PCSO Board’s authority to grant employee benefits is absolute, or whether it is subject to existing compensation laws and regulations.

    The Supreme Court sided with the COA, emphasizing that the PCSO Board’s power to fix salaries and benefits is not unrestricted. As the Court held in Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 243607, 09 December 2020:

    The Court already ruled that R.A. 1169 or the PCSO Charter, does not grant its Board the unbridled authority to fix salaries and allowances of its officials and employees. PCSO is still duty bound to observe pertinent laws and regulations on the grant of allowances, benefits, incentives and other forms of compensation. The power of the Board to fix the salaries and determine the reasonable allowances, bonuses and other incentives are still subject to the review of the DBM.

    Building on this principle, the Court clarified that the PCSO must adhere to pertinent budgetary legislation, laws, and rules when exercising its power to determine employee compensation. The PCSO cannot grant additional salaries, incentives, and benefits unless all the laws relating to these disbursements are complied with. This underscores the importance of aligning agency practices with established legal frameworks to ensure proper use of public funds.

    The Court also addressed the PCSO’s reliance on the alleged post facto approval from the Office of the President. However, the Court rejected this argument, citing previous rulings that invalidated such approvals when they contravene existing laws. Moreover, the Court noted that the letter from Executive Secretary Ochoa only approved benefits given prior to September 7, 2010, while the disallowed benefits were granted starting November 2010. This highlights the necessity of obtaining proper authorization prior to granting benefits and ensuring that any approvals are consistent with existing legal requirements.

    Regarding the specific benefits in question, the Court found that the Weekly Draw Allowance, Staple Food Allowance, COLA, and Medicine Allowance were already deemed integrated into the new standardized salary rate under Section 12 of RA 6758. This section provides that allowances due to government employees are generally included in the standardized salary, with specific exceptions. The disallowed benefits did not fall under these exceptions, and the PCSO failed to demonstrate that their separate grant was sanctioned by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) or authorized by the President. Therefore, the separate grant of these benefits lacked legal basis.

    The Christmas Bonus, which exceeded the amount authorized by RA 6686, as amended by RA 8441, was also deemed invalid. While these laws allow for a Christmas Bonus equivalent to one month’s salary plus an additional cash gift of P5,000.00, the PCSO Board authorized a bonus equivalent to three months’ salary. As the Court stated, the disallowance should be limited to the excess amount. Similarly, the Hazard Pay was disallowed because the PCSO failed to establish that the recipients met the requirements set forth by the DBM, which include being assigned to and performing duties in strife-torn areas.

    Finally, the Court dismissed the PCSO’s argument that the disallowance violated the principle of non-diminution of benefits. The Court emphasized that the PCSO failed to provide sufficient evidence that the employees actually suffered a diminution in pay as a result of the disallowance. As stated in Pulido-Tan, G.R. No. 243607, 09 December 2020:

    The Court has steadily held that, in accordance with second sentence (first paragraph) of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758, allowances, fringe benefits or any additional financial incentives, whether or not integrated into the standardized salaries prescribed by R.A. No. 6758, should continue to be enjoyed by employees who were incumbents and were actually receiving those benefits as of July 1, 1989. Here, the PCSO failed to establish that its officials and employees who were recipients of the disallowed COLA actually suffered a diminution in pay as a result of its consolidation into their standardized salary rates. It was not demonstrated that such officials and employees were incumbents and already receiving the COLA as of July 1, 1989. Therefore, the principle of non-diminution of benefits finds no application to them.

    Because the PCSO could only proffer allegations lacking evidence to support their claim of diminished benefits, the Court found no merit in their argument. The Court then addressed the liability of the approving/certifying officers for the disallowed benefits, citing the Madera Rules to determine their responsibility.

    While the COA Proper had exonerated the payees on the ground of good faith, the Court found that the approving/certifying officers, including the individually named petitioners, were grossly negligent in approving the disallowed benefits. They failed to observe the clear and unequivocal provisions of laws and rules applicable to the disbursement of these benefits. As a result, the Court held them solidarily liable for the net disallowed amount, pursuant to Section 43, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code.

    The Court clarified that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for public officials, who are expected to be familiar with the laws and regulations governing their actions. The approving/certifying officers could not claim that they were merely following orders from the PCSO Board, as their acts were discretionary and essential to the grant of the disallowed benefits. As stated in The Officers and Employees of Iloilo Provincial Government v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 218383, 05 January 2021:

    Gross negligence has been defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. As discussed by Senior Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe, “[g]ross negligence may become evident through the non-compliance of an approving/authorizing officer of clear and straightforward requirements of an appropriation law, or budgetary rule or regulation, which because of their clarity and straightforwardness only call for one [reasonable] interpretation.”

    For their gross negligence, the Court found the approving/certifying officers solidarily liable for the disallowed amount, emphasizing their responsibility to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

    FAQs

    What was the central issue in this case? The central issue was whether the PCSO Board’s authority to fix employee salaries and benefits is absolute or subject to existing compensation laws and regulations. The Court ultimately ruled that the PCSO must comply with pertinent budgetary legislation and rules.
    What benefits were disallowed by the COA? The COA disallowed Christmas bonuses, weekly draw allowances, staple food allowances, hazard pay, cost of living allowances (COLA), and medicine allowances, totaling P1,601,067.49. These benefits were deemed to lack legal basis and violate existing compensation laws.
    Did the Office of the President’s letter validate the disallowed benefits? No, the Court rejected the PCSO’s argument that a letter from the Office of the President constituted post facto approval. The Court noted that the letter only approved benefits given prior to September 7, 2010, while the disallowed benefits were granted starting November 2010.
    Why were the COLA and other allowances disallowed? The Court found that the Weekly Draw Allowance, Staple Food Allowance, COLA, and Medicine Allowance were already deemed integrated into the new standardized salary rate under Section 12 of RA 6758. Since these benefits did not fall under the exceptions outlined in the law, their separate grant lacked legal basis.
    What was the basis for disallowing the Christmas Bonus? The Christmas Bonus was disallowed because the PCSO Board authorized a bonus equivalent to three months’ salary, exceeding the amount authorized by RA 6686, as amended by RA 8441. The Court clarified that the disallowance should be limited to the excess amount.
    Who is liable to return the disallowed amounts? The Court held the approving/certifying officers solidarily liable for the net disallowed amount due to their gross negligence in approving the benefits. While the payees were exonerated, the approving officers must still return the funds.
    What constitutes gross negligence in this context? Gross negligence is defined as the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences. In this case, it involved failing to observe clear and straightforward legal provisions.
    What is the significance of the Madera Rules? The Madera Rules provide a definitive set of guidelines to determine the liability of government officers and employees being made to return employee benefits that were disallowed in audit. They outline the conditions under which approving officers, certifying officers, and recipients may be held liable.

    This case serves as a reminder that government agencies must adhere to existing laws and regulations when granting employee benefits. The PCSO Board’s authority is not absolute, and officials must exercise due diligence in ensuring compliance with budgetary legislation and rules. The consequences of failing to do so can include personal liability for the disallowed amounts. This case reinforces the importance of transparency, accountability, and responsible use of public funds within government agencies.

    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: Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 246313, February 15, 2022

  • PCSO Benefits Disallowed: Navigating Compensation Laws and the Limits of Corporate Authority

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission on Audit’s (COA) decision disallowing certain benefits granted by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) to its employees. This ruling clarifies that while the PCSO Board of Directors has the power to fix salaries and benefits, this power is not absolute and must comply with existing laws and regulations. The Court emphasized that unauthorized allowances and benefits are considered illegal disbursements, for which both approving officers and recipients can be held liable, ensuring accountability in the use of public funds.

    Beyond the Jackpot: Can PCSO’s Board Bypass National Compensation Laws?

    The case revolves around the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and the Commission on Audit (COA), specifically regarding the disallowance of certain benefits that PCSO had granted to its officials and employees. For calendar years 2008 and 2009, the COA flagged several benefits, including Productivity Incentive Bonus (PIB), Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), Anniversary Cash Gift, Hazard Duty Pay, Christmas Bonus, Grocery Allowance, and Staple Food Allowance, totaling Php2,744,654.73. The central legal question is whether the PCSO Board of Directors has unrestricted authority under its charter, Republic Act (RA) No. 1169, to fix the salaries and benefits of its employees, even if those benefits exceed or contravene national compensation laws and regulations.

    The PCSO argued that R.A. No. 1169 grants its Board the power to fix salaries, and that the benefits had been previously authorized by former presidents, becoming part of the employees’ compensation package. They also claimed that the benefits were sourced from the 15% operating fund and PCSO savings, thus not dependent on the national government’s budget. The COA, however, maintained that the PCSO’s power is subject to pertinent civil service and compensation laws, and that the benefits lacked legal basis or exceeded authorized amounts.

    The Supreme Court sided with the COA, holding that the PCSO Board’s authority is not absolute. “The Court already ruled that R.A. 1169 or the PCSO Charter, does not grant its Board the unbridled authority to fix salaries and allowances of its officials and employees,” the Court stated in PCSO v. COA. The PCSO must comply with budgetary legislation and rules when granting salaries, incentives, and benefits. The Court then examined each disallowed benefit against relevant laws and regulations.

    Regarding the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), Grocery Allowance, and Staple Food Allowance, the Court noted that Section 12 of RA 6758 (the Salary Standardization Law) generally includes allowances in the standardized salary rate, with specific exceptions. These allowances were not among the exceptions. DBM BC No. 16, s. 1998, further prohibits the grant of food, rice, gift checks, or other incentives/allowances unless authorized by the President through an Administrative Order.

    The PCSO presented documents purporting to show presidential approval, including a 1997 letter with a marginal approval, and memoranda from 2000 and 2001. However, the Court agreed with the COA that these documents did not constitute unqualified and continuing authority to grant the benefits. The approvals related to past benefits and did not extend to subsequent years or cover all the disallowed items. Moreover, Administrative Order No. 103, s. 2004, suspended the grant of new or additional benefits except for Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives or those expressly provided by presidential issuance, superseding any prior authorization.

    The Court also found that the Productivity Incentive Benefit, Anniversary Bonus, and Christmas Bonus exceeded the amounts authorized by applicable laws and regulations. Administrative Order No. 161, s. 1994, authorized a Productivity Incentive Bonus up to Php2,000.00, while PCSO granted Php10,000.00. Administrative Order No. 263, s. 1996, limited the Anniversary Bonus to Php3,000.00, but PCSO granted Php25,000.00. Republic Act 6686, as amended by RA 8441, provided for a Christmas Bonus equivalent to one month’s salary plus a Php5,000.00 cash gift, but PCSO granted three months’ salary.

    The Hazard Duty Pay was also disallowed because the PCSO failed to show compliance with DBM CCC-10, which requires proof that recipient-employees were assigned to and performing duties in strife-torn areas for a certain period. The PCSO’s across-the-board grant of hazard pay lacked this qualification. The Court rejected the argument that the employees had acquired vested rights to the benefits due to their continuous grant over time. Citing Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System v. Commission on Audit, the Court stated that customs, practice, and tradition, regardless of length, cannot create vested rights if they lack legal basis.

    Further, the Court clarified that it’s ruling on the need to secure Presidential or DBM approval does not cover agencies enjoying fiscal autonomy under the 1987 Constitution, such as the Judiciary or the Commission on Audit, as such bodies require fiscal flexibility in discharging their constitutional duties. The Court then addressed the liability of the PCSO officials and employees. Referring to Madera v. COA, the Court outlined rules for determining liability for disallowed amounts, stating that approving and certifying officers acting in bad faith, malice, or gross negligence are solidarily liable, while recipients are liable to return the amounts they received unless they can show the amounts were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered. In this case, the approving and certifying officers were deemed grossly negligent for failing to observe clear legal provisions. Failure to follow a clear and straightforward legal provision constitutes gross negligence, as held in The Officers and Employees of Iloilo Provincial Government v. COA.

    The payees were held liable to return the amounts they received based on the principle of solutio indebiti, as receiving something by mistake creates an obligation to return it. The Court clarified that in order to fall under the exception that amounts were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered, as specified in the case of Abellanosa v. COA (Abellanosa), that both the personnel incentive or benefit must have a proper basis in law but is only disallowed due to irregularities that are merely procedural in nature, and the personnel incentive or benefit must have a clear, direct, and reasonable connection to the actual performance of the payee-recipient’s official work and functions for which the benefit or incentive was intended as further compensation, are met.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the PCSO Board of Directors had the authority to grant certain benefits to its employees that exceeded or contravened national compensation laws and regulations.
    What is the Salary Standardization Law? The Salary Standardization Law (RA 6758) aims to standardize the salary rates of government employees. Section 12 consolidates allowances into the standardized salary, with specific exceptions.
    What is Administrative Order No. 103? Administrative Order No. 103, s. 2004, directed the continued adoption of austerity measures in government, suspending the grant of new or additional benefits to officials and employees of GOCCs, with limited exceptions.
    What is the significance of the Madera ruling? The Madera ruling (Madera v. COA) established definitive rules for determining the liability of government officers and employees for disallowed amounts, including the liability of approving officers and recipients.
    What is solutio indebiti? Solutio indebiti is a principle in civil law stating that if someone receives something by mistake, they have an obligation to return it. This principle was applied to the payees of the disallowed benefits.
    Who is liable for returning the disallowed amounts? The approving and certifying officers who acted with gross negligence are solidarily liable for the disallowed amount. The payees, whether approving officers or mere recipients, are individually liable for the amounts they personally received.
    What constitutes gross negligence in this context? Gross negligence is defined as the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences.
    Are there any exceptions to the requirement to return disallowed amounts? Yes, recipients may be excused from returning disallowed amounts if the amounts were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered, or if undue prejudice, social justice considerations, or other bona fide exceptions are present.
    What must recipients show to be excused from returning the amounts? As specified in the case of Abellanosa v. COA (Abellanosa), to prove that amounts were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered, recipients must show that the incentive or benefit has a proper basis in law but is only disallowed due to irregularities that are merely procedural in nature, and the incentive or benefit must have a clear, direct, and reasonable connection to the actual performance of the payee-recipient’s official work and functions.

    This case serves as a reminder to government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) to adhere strictly to national compensation laws and regulations when granting benefits to their employees. While GOCCs may have some autonomy, their authority is not unlimited and must be exercised within the bounds of the law. The decision also reinforces the importance of due diligence and good faith on the part of approving and certifying officers to avoid personal liability for disallowed expenses.

    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: Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office vs. Commission on Audit, G.R No. 218124, October 05, 2021

  • Understanding Refund Obligations for Illegally Disbursed Government Benefits in the Philippines

    Key Takeaway: Even Good Faith Receipt of Illegally Disbursed Government Benefits May Require Refund

    Philippine Health Insurance Corporation Regional Office – CARAGA, Johnny Y. Sychua, et al. v. Commission on Audit, Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo, Ma. Gracia Pulido-Tan, et al., G.R. No. 230218, July 06, 2021

    Imagine receiving a surprise bonus at work, only to later discover it was disbursed without proper authorization. This scenario played out for employees of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) in the Caraga region, sparking a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether these employees, who received various benefits in good faith, were obligated to refund the amounts upon a finding of illegality. This case highlights the complexities of government compensation and the legal principles governing the return of disallowed benefits.

    In 2008 and 2009, PhilHealth-Caraga granted its officers, employees, and contractors a range of benefits totaling nearly P50 million. These included contractor’s gifts, special events gifts, project completion incentives, and more. However, the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed these disbursements due to the lack of presidential approval, as required by law. PhilHealth challenged the disallowance, arguing that its fiscal autonomy allowed it to grant these benefits without such approval.

    Legal Context: The Framework for Government Compensation and Disallowances

    In the Philippines, government compensation is governed by a complex web of laws and regulations. The Salary Standardization Law (Republic Act No. 6758) sets standardized salary rates for government employees, integrating most allowances into these rates. However, certain allowances are exempted, such as transportation and subsistence allowances.

    Government agencies like PhilHealth, which are exempt from the Salary Standardization Law, must still adhere to guidelines issued by the President under Presidential Decree No. 1597. This decree requires agencies to report their compensation plans to the President through the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

    Key provisions directly relevant to this case include:

    “SECTION 6. Exemption from OCPC Rules and Regulations. — Agencies, positions or groups of officials and employees of the national government, including government-owned and controlled corporations, who are hereafter exempted by law from OCPC coverage, shall observe such guidelines and policies as may be issued by the President governing position classification, salary rates, levels of allowances, project and other honoraria, overtime rates, and other forms of compensation and fringe benefits.”

    This legal framework aims to balance agency autonomy with presidential oversight, ensuring that government funds are disbursed responsibly. The term “fiscal autonomy” refers to an agency’s ability to manage its finances independently, but this autonomy is not absolute and must be exercised within legal bounds.

    Case Breakdown: From Disbursement to Supreme Court Ruling

    The story began in 2008 when PhilHealth-Caraga started granting various benefits to its workforce. These benefits, while seemingly generous, lacked the required presidential approval. The COA issued notices of disallowance in 2009, totaling P49,874,228.02 across multiple categories of benefits.

    PhilHealth contested the disallowance, arguing that its charter allowed it to fix compensation without presidential approval. The case progressed through the COA’s regional and central levels, with the COA maintaining that the benefits were illegal due to non-compliance with presidential issuances.

    The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the principle of unjust enrichment and the legal obligations of both approving officers and recipients. The Court ruled that:

    “Approving and certifying officers who are clearly shown to have acted in bad faith, malice, or gross negligence are, pursuant to Section 43 of the Administrative Code of 1987, solidarity liable to return only the net disallowed amount which, as discussed herein, excludes amounts excused under the following sections 2c and 2d.”

    The Court further clarified that recipients must return disallowed amounts unless they were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered or excused based on social justice considerations.

    In this case, the Court found that most benefits lacked a legal basis and were deemed incorporated into the employees’ standardized salaries. However, two benefits—welfare support assistance and transportation allowance—were upheld as valid and did not require refunding.

    Practical Implications: Navigating Government Compensation and Refund Obligations

    This ruling has significant implications for government agencies and their employees. Agencies must ensure strict compliance with presidential guidelines when disbursing benefits, even if they enjoy fiscal autonomy. Employees should be aware that receiving benefits in good faith does not automatically exempt them from refund obligations if those benefits are later found to be illegal.

    For businesses and organizations working with government agencies, this case underscores the importance of due diligence in compensation matters. It’s crucial to verify the legal basis for any benefits or incentives offered by government partners.

    Key Lessons:

    • Agencies must obtain presidential approval for benefits not covered by the Salary Standardization Law.
    • Employees may be liable to refund illegally disbursed benefits, even if received in good faith.
    • Certain benefits, if legally authorized, may be exempt from refund requirements.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is fiscal autonomy in the context of government agencies?

    Fiscal autonomy refers to an agency’s ability to manage its finances independently, but this autonomy is subject to legal constraints and presidential oversight.

    Can government employees keep benefits received in good faith if they are later disallowed?

    Generally, no. The Supreme Court has ruled that recipients must refund disallowed benefits unless they were genuinely given for services rendered or excused on social justice grounds.

    What types of benefits are exempt from integration into standardized salaries?

    Benefits such as transportation and subsistence allowances are exempt from integration under the Salary Standardization Law.

    How can agencies ensure compliance with compensation laws?

    Agencies should review their compensation plans with the Department of Budget and Management and obtain presidential approval for benefits not covered by existing laws.

    What should employees do if they receive questionable benefits?

    Employees should seek clarification from their agency’s legal or HR department and document any communications regarding the legality of the benefits.

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

  • Navigating Employee Incentives: Understanding the Limits of Government Agency Compensation Powers

    Key Takeaway: Government Agencies Must Adhere to Legal Frameworks When Granting Employee Incentives

    Social Security System v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 231391, June 22, 2021

    Imagine a scenario where government employees are granted additional incentives, only to find out years later that these were not legally sanctioned. This was the reality for officials and employees of the Social Security System (SSS) who received what were termed as “Counterpart CNA Incentives.” The case of Social Security System v. Commission on Audit delves into the complexities of employee compensation within government agencies, highlighting the necessity for strict adherence to legal frameworks.

    The crux of the case revolved around the SSS’s decision to grant incentives to non-rank and file employees, which were later disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA). The central legal question was whether the SSS had the authority to provide such incentives without prior executive approval, and if these incentives could be classified as Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentives.

    Legal Context

    In the Philippines, the compensation of government employees is governed by various laws and regulations. The Salary Standardization Law (SSL) sets the standard for salaries and benefits across government agencies. However, certain agencies, like the SSS, are exempt from the SSL but must still comply with other guidelines and policies set by the President.

    Administrative Order No. 103 (AO 103) is particularly relevant to this case. It directs all government agencies to suspend the grant of new or additional benefits, with exceptions for CNA incentives and those expressly provided by presidential issuance. CNA incentives are benefits agreed upon in a collective negotiation agreement between the employer and the employees’ organization.

    “All NGAs, SUCs, GOCCs, GFIs and OGCEs, whether exempt from the Salary Standardization Law or not, are hereby directed to… Suspend the grant of new or additional benefits to full-time officials and employees and officials, except for (i) Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) Incentives which are agreed to be given in strict compliance with the provisions of the Public Sector Labor-Management Council Resolutions No. 04, s. 2002 and No. 2, s. 2003; and (ii) those expressly provided by presidential issuance.”

    Furthermore, Presidential Decree No. 1597 requires that any compensation plan, including allowances and benefits, must be reported to and approved by the President. This applies even to agencies exempt from the SSL, ensuring a uniform standard of governance.

    These legal frameworks are designed to maintain fiscal discipline and ensure that government resources are used responsibly. For example, if a local government unit wanted to provide a special allowance to its employees, it would need to ensure that this allowance is either part of a CNA or has been approved by the President.

    Case Breakdown

    The saga began when the Social Security Commission (SSC) passed Resolution No. 259 in 2005, granting CNA incentives to members of the Alert and Concerned Employees for Better SSS (ACCESS), and “Counterpart CNA Incentives” to other SSS personnel. These “Counterpart” incentives were paid from 2006 to 2009, amounting to P2,108,213.36.

    In 2010, the COA issued a Notice of Disallowance, arguing that these payments contravened AO 103. The SSS appealed, asserting that the payments were made under its authority to fix compensation as per Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 1161, and were not CNA incentives per se.

    The COA Director upheld the disallowance, emphasizing that the payments were not CNA incentives and lacked presidential approval. The COA Proper affirmed this ruling, leading to the SSS’s petition to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court’s decision focused on two main points:

    • The “Counterpart CNA Incentives” were not CNA incentives as defined by AO 103 because they were not the result of a valid CNA.
    • The SSC’s power to fix compensation was not absolute and required presidential approval for such benefits.

    The Court quoted, “It must be stressed that the Board’s discretion on the matter of personnel compensation is not absolute as the same must be exercised in accordance with the standard laid down by law… To ensure such compliance, the resolutions of the Board affecting such matters should first be reviewed and approved by the Department of Budget and Management pursuant to Section 6 of PD. No. 1597.”

    Another significant quote was, “The SSS cannot rely on Sections 3(c) and 25 of the SS Law either. A harmonious reading of the said provisions discloses that the SSC may merely fix the compensation, benefits and allowances of SSS appointive employees within the limits prescribed by the SS Law.”

    The Court ultimately dismissed the petition, affirming the COA’s decision and ordering the recipients to return the disallowed amount.

    Practical Implications

    This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal frameworks when granting employee incentives. Government agencies must ensure that any new benefits are either part of a valid CNA or have presidential approval. This decision may prompt agencies to review their compensation policies and ensure compliance with existing laws.

    For businesses and organizations, this case serves as a reminder to carefully navigate the legal landscape when offering incentives to employees, especially if they are part of government or quasi-government entities.

    Key Lessons:

    • Understand the legal basis for any incentives or benefits offered to employees.
    • Ensure that any new benefits comply with relevant laws and regulations, particularly those requiring executive approval.
    • Be prepared to justify and document the legal basis for any compensation decisions to avoid future disallowances.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What are CNA incentives?

    CNA incentives are benefits agreed upon in a collective negotiation agreement between an employer and an employees’ organization, typically applicable to rank and file employees.

    Can government agencies grant additional benefits without presidential approval?

    No, government agencies must seek presidential approval for any additional benefits not covered by a valid CNA or specific presidential issuance.

    What happens if a disallowed benefit has already been received by employees?

    Employees who received disallowed benefits are generally required to return the amount received, unless they can prove the benefits were genuinely given in consideration of services rendered.

    How can an organization ensure compliance with compensation laws?

    Organizations should regularly review their compensation policies, consult with legal experts, and ensure all benefits are legally sanctioned.

    What are the potential consequences of non-compliance with compensation laws?

    Non-compliance can lead to disallowances, financial penalties, and potential legal action against the officials responsible for the illegal disbursement.

    ASG Law specializes in employment and labor law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and ensure your organization’s compensation practices are legally sound.