Title
Blaquera vs. Alcala
Case
G.R. No. 109406
Decision Date
Sep 11, 1998
Gov employees sought productivity incentives under EO 486, challenged DBM's deferral order; Supreme Court upheld deferral, emphasizing executive discretion, fiscal responsibility.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 109406)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Consolidated Petitions (G.R. Nos. 109406, 110642, 111494, 112056)
    • Petitioners, officials and employees of various national and local government agencies and GOCCs, received Productivity Incentive Benefits (PIB) for calendar year (CY) 1992 pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 292 (the 1987 Administrative Code) and the Omnibus Rules implementing Book V of EO 292.
    • On January 19, 1993, President Ramos issued Administrative Order (AO) 29, limiting CY 1992 PIB to a maximum of ₱1,000 each (Section 1) and directing refund of any excess (Section 4). AO 29 also reiterated the prohibition (Section 7) of AO 268 (February 21, 1992) against granting similar benefits for CY 1992 and subsequent years without presidential approval. Agency heads, including COA auditors, thereafter deducted alleged overpayments from petitioners’ salaries or allowances. Petitioners sought injunctive relief against further deductions, arguing AOs 29 and 268 violated EO 292, usurped Civil Service Commission (CSC) authority, and impaired contractual obligations.
  • Petition in G.R. No. 119597
    • The Association of Dedicated Employees of the Philippine Tourism Authority (ADEPT) represented PTA employees who had been granted CY 1992 productivity bonuses under Republic Act (RA) 6971 (Productivity Incentives Act of 1990).
    • COA disallowed these bonuses, citing AO 29’s prohibition. The COA denied ADEPT’s appeal on grounds RA 6971 applies only to private enterprises and GOCCs incorporated under the Corporation Code, not to GOCCs with special charters subject to civil service. ADEPT petitioned the Court to overturn the COA decision and challenge the validity of AOs 29 and 268.

Issues:

  • Coverage of RA 6971
Does RA 6971 extend to the Philippine Tourism Authority, a GOCC created by special charter and covered by Civil Service Law, such that its employees are entitled to productivity bonuses under RA 6971?
  • Validity of AOs 268 and 29
Are Administrative Orders 268 (1992) and 29 (1993) constitutional and valid exercises of the President’s power, or do they conflict with EO 292 and usurp the CSC’s authority to promulgate incentive award rules?
  • Contractual Impairment
Does the forced refund of productivity bonuses constitute an unconstitutional impairment of contractual obligations?
  • Personal Liability
Should agency heads and COA auditors be held personally liable for authorizing or certifying refunds of PIB under AO 268 § 9?

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.