G.R. No. L-5005 - Dayrit vs. De los Santos

In May 14, 1997, the Social Security Commission (SSC) of the Social Security System (SSS) approved Resolution No. 360, which granted a new compensation package for SSS employees including medical benefits, rice allowance, and a provident fund.
The benefits approved were subsequently incorporated in the SSS Manual on Personnel Policies, Rules and Regulations, commonly known as the “Blue Book.”

On September 22, 1999, the SSC issued Resolution No. 790 authorizing EME for its members at rates similar to those of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
The SSC granted an additional budgetary appropriation—approximately P4.49 million—to cover these expenses, which also included an increase in the EME specifically for the SSC Chairman.

On July 4, 2007, the Legal and Adjudication Office-Corporate Government Sector (LAO-CGS) of the COA issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. SSS-2007-02 (2004), disallowing a total of P4,314,683.99 broken down as follows:

For EME: There was no legal authority under the SSS Charter (R.A. 8282) or the General Appropriations Act (as interpreted in COA Circular No. 2006-001) for the SSC Commissioners to claim EME. The absence of an express provision led to the characterization of the payment as “irregular” expenditure.
For medical benefits, rice allowances, and provident fund: These were disallowed on the basis that such benefits, being covered in the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA), were reserved only for rank and file employees of Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs), not for high-level officials or members of the SSC.

The SSS filed a Motion for Reconsideration disputing the disallowance and argued:

That the SSC’s authority to grant EME and other benefits was inherent in the SS Law, even if not specifically detailed in R.A. 8282.
That various provisions of the SS Law, such as Sections 3(c), 4(a)(3), 4(b)(5), and 25, collectively empowered the SSC to fix reasonable compensation, adopt a budget of expenditures, and maintain a provident fund.
That the fiscal autonomy of the SSS, deriving from contributions and other income (and its exemption from the Salary Standardization Law), removed the need to seek funding from the General Appropriations Act.
That the benefits disallowed were not CNA incentives and had been granted as part of a compensation structure formulated by the SSS itself.

Despite these arguments, the COA-Legal Services Sector (COA-LSS) denied the motion for reconsideration on August 10, 2009, stressing that the provisions of COA Circular No. 2006-001 were binding regardless of the SSC’s claim to authority under the SS Law.

In its January 30, 2013 decision and the December 6, 2013 resolution, the COA upheld the disallowance, ruling that:

The SS Law, particularly Section 3(a), specifically enumerated the benefits for SSC members and did not confer upon the SSC the power to grant additional benefits.
The additional benefits (EME, medical expenses, rice allowance, and provident fund) were not authorized as they went beyond the limited benefits set forth in the law.

The present petition was filed to challenge the COA’s decisions and to question whether the SSC members were entitled to the contested benefits.

Whether the members of the Social Security Commission (SSC) are entitled to receive the disallowed Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses (EME), along with additional benefits (medical benefit, rice allowance, and provident fund) based on the provisions of the SS Law.

Whether the SS Law empowers the SSC to grant benefits beyond those specifically enumerated in Section 3(a) of the law.
Whether the SSS’s claim of fiscal autonomy and self-managed budgeting permits it to allocate funds for additional benefits outside the prescribed limits.
Whether the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius supports the limitation of benefits solely to what is expressly provided in Section 3(a).