G.R. No. 200418 - Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees vs. Abad

Petitioners: Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE), Social Welfare Employees Association of the Philippines (SWEAP-DSWD), National Federation of Employees Associations in the Department of Agriculture (NAFEDA), and Department of Agrarian Reform Employees Association (DAREA).
Respondents: Florencio B. Abad, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and Corazon J. Soliman, Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).
The Petition challenges the constitutionality of DBM Budget Circular No. 2011-5 that imposed a P25,000.00 ceiling on the Collective Negotiations Agreement (CNA) incentive for 2011.

CNA Incentives are cash incentives granted to government employees under collective negotiation agreements, contingent upon generating savings from cost-cutting measures (as per Budget Circular No. 2006-1 and PSLMC Resolutions).
The DSWD initially authorized CNA incentive payments totaling P30,000.00 in two tranches for 2011.
On December 26, 2011, DBM issued Circular No. 2011-5, setting a P25,000 ceiling on CNA incentives.
On January 20, 2012, DSWD issued a Memorandum directing employees to refund the excess P5,000.00 through monthly salary deductions.
Petitioners filed a Rule 65 Petition for Certiorari/Prohibition questioning the Circular and the Memorandum’s validity, seeking to enjoin their enforcement and declare them unconstitutional.

The right of government employees to self-organize and engage in collective negotiation is recognized but limited by law.
Executive Order No. 180 (1987) created the Public Sector Labor-Management Council (PSLMC) to implement this right and promulgate necessary rules.
PSLMC issued Resolution No. 4 (2002), providing guidelines for CNA incentives, including defining savings as the allowable source.
Administrative Order No. 135 (2005) authorized CNA incentives if included in valid CNAs, with DBM mandated to issue implementing guidelines.
Budget Circulars No. 2006-1 and 2011-5 regulate CNA incentives, including the controversial P25,000 ceiling.
Jurisprudence establishes no vested rights to CNA incentives as these depend on savings and compliance with applicable laws.

Petitioners filed the Petition on February 21, 2012, and sought preliminary injunctions.
Respondents filed comments defending the validity and regularity of the Circular and Memorandum.
The Court noted pleadings and memoranda and identified multiple legal issues for resolution, including jurisdiction, standing, exhaustion of administrative remedies, authority of the DBM Secretary, constitutionality of Circular provisions, vested rights, and the authority of PSLMC.

Whether the petition is the proper remedy given the nature of the acts assailed (rule-making vs. ministerial/quasi-judicial).
Whether petitioners have legal standing to maintain the Petition.
Whether petitioners violated the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts by directly invoking the Supreme Court.
Whether petitioners exhausted administrative remedies.
Whether the constitutional questions invoked are properly raised and justiciable.

Whether the issuance of DBM Budget Circular No. 2011-5 is within Secretary Abad’s jurisdiction and authority.
Whether DBM Circular No. 2011-5 provisions limiting source and amount of CNA incentives violate or improperly amend Administrative Order No. 135.
Whether DBM Circular No. 2011-5 modifies or nullifies valid CNA provisions and violates the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts.
Whether petitioners have vested rights to CNA incentives.
Whether the January 20, 2012 DSWD Memorandum directing the refund violates Section 43 of the General Appropriations Act of 2011 on authorized salary deductions.
Whether Section 5 of PSLMC Resolution No. 4 and related issuances violate Article VI, Section 25(5) of the Constitution on appropriations transfer.
Whether Section 15 of Executive Order No. 180, designating the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chair as PSLMC Chair, is unconstitutional for subsuming the CSC under the executive branch or exceeding its powers.