Title
Ang Nars Party List vs. Executive Secretary
Case
G.R. No. 215746
Decision Date
Oct 8, 2019
Petitioners challenged Section 6 of EO No. 811, which downgraded nurses' salary grade, arguing it violated Section 32 of R.A. No. 9173. Supreme Court ruled EO invalid, mandating Salary Grade 15.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22958)

Facts:

  • Statutory Background
    • Republic Act No. 9173 (Philippine Nursing Act of 2002), approved 21 October 2002, § 32 mandates that the minimum base pay of nurses in public health institutions be Salary Grade (SG) 15 under RA 6758.
    • Senate and House Joint Resolution No. 4 (JR 4), approved 28 July 2008 and enacted by the President on 17 June 2009, authorized the President “to Modify the Compensation and Position Classification System…” JR 4 § 16 expressly amended or repealed inconsistent provisions of various laws, including RA 9173.
    • Executive Order No. 811 (E.O. 811), issued 17 June 2009 to implement JR 4, § 6 raised Nurse I and Teacher I from SG 10 to SG 11 (rather than SG 15), and directed DBM/CSC to review other positions.
  • Administrative Correspondence
    • 21 May 2014: Rep. Samaco-Paquiz (Ang Nars Party-List) wrote DOH and DBM inquiring why § 32 RA 9173 (SG 15) had not been implemented.
    • 27 May 2014: DOH (Sec. Ona) and DBM (OIC Macaranas) replied that staffing and compensation were governed by DBM guidelines and a 2009 salary survey, that SG 11 entry level for nurses was justified, and that SG 15 would distort inter‐professional hierarchies and strain the budget.
    • 22 October 2014: DOJ (Sec. De Lima) declined a legal opinion, deferring to DBM’s jurisdiction over position classification.
  • Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
    • Petitioners:
      • Ang Nars Party-List, represented by Rep. Leah Primitiva G. Samaco-Paquiz.
      • Public Services Labor Independent Confederation (PSLINK), represented by Annie E. Geron.
    • Respondents: the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Budget and Management (DBM), and the Secretary of Health (DOH).
    • Prayer: to annul E.O. 811 § 6 as grave abuse of discretion and to compel implementation of § 32 RA 9173 (SG 15).

Issues:

  • Did respondents commit grave abuse of discretion and exceed their authority under JR 4 by fixing Nurse I at SG 11 in E.O. 811?
  • Did JR 4 amend or repeal § 32 of RA 9173?
  • Can the Court compel respondents by mandamus to implement § 32 RA 9173 (SG 15)?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.