Title
Ronquillo, Jr. vs. National Electrification Administration
Case
G.R. No. 172593
Decision Date
Apr 20, 2016
Former employees of the National Electrification Administration in the Philippines petition for the payment of their Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) back pay, but the Supreme Court denies their petition, ruling that the COLA was integrated into the standardized salary rates and its non-payment did not constitute a diminution of pay.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 172593)

Facts:

  • The case "Ronquillo, Jr. v. National Electrification Administration" (G.R. No. 172593) was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on April 20, 2016.
  • Petitioners included Napoleon S. Ronquillo, Jr., Edna G. Ra a, Romeo Refruto, Ponciano T. Antegro, and 151 others, all former employees of the National Electrification Administration (NEA).
  • Prior to July 1, 1989, NEA provided a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) amounting to 40% of basic pay, in addition to salaries and other allowances.
  • Republic Act No. 6758, effective July 1, 1989, integrated all allowances, including COLA, into standardized salary rates for government employees.
  • Following this law, NEA ceased the payment of COLA to its employees.
  • The Department of Budget and Management issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, confirming the discontinuation of allowances to prevent illegal public fund disbursement.
  • Although the initial Circular was invalidated due to lack of publication, it was later re-issued, clarifying the integration of COLA into salaries.
  • After NEA's restructuring under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, many employees, including the petitioners, were separated from service.
  • The petitioners sought back pay for their COLA, which NEA denied, citing the need for funds for separation pay.
  • The petitioners filed a Special Civil Action for Mandamus in the Regional Trial Court, which was denied for lack of merit, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' appeal and upheld the Regional Trial Court's decision.
  • The Court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to back pay for COLA, as it had been integrated into their stan...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Court clarified that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply when the issue is a question of law.
  • The case focused on interpreting Republic Act No. 6758 and its rules regarding the integration of COLA into standardized salary rates.
  • The Court determined that COLA was i...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.