Title
Cawad vs. Abad
Case
G.R. No. 207145
Decision Date
Jul 28, 2015
Public health workers challenged joint circulars limiting RA 7305 benefits; SC upheld most provisions but invalidated reduced hazard pay and unenforceable step increment rules.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 166554)

Applicable Law and Regulatory Framework

– Republic Act No. 7305 (“Magna Carta of Public Health Workers,” 1992) grants PHWs hazard allowance, subsistence allowance and longevity pay. Section 35 mandates that the DOH Secretary, after consultation with government agencies and health‐workers’ organizations, issue implementing rules and regulations (IRR) to take effect 30 days after publication.
– In July 1992 and November 1999, the DOH promulgated the IRR and a Revised IRR, prescribing eligibility criteria and minimum rates: hazard pay at least 25% of basic salary for SG-19 and below (5% for SG-20 and above), subsistence allowance of at least ₱50/day (₱1,500/month) and longevity pay at 5% of basic pay per five years of service.
– Senate–House Joint Resolution No. 4 (2008/approved 2009) authorized the DBM, in coordination with concerned agencies, to “rationalize” compensation‐related Magna Carta benefits and dispense with prior consultative functions.
– DBM–CSC Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2012 (Sept. 3, 2012) prescribed rules on step increments due to merit and length of service, providing that those already granted longevity pay under existing law become ineligible for length‐of‐service step increments.
– DBM–DOH Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2012 (Nov. 29, 2012) detailed new qualifications for hazard pay (actual exposure to high/low risk hazards), fixed subsistence allowance at ₱50/full-time day (₱25/part-time day), and limited longevity pay to plantilla holders meeting performance and disciplinary criteria.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

  1. Whether respondents gravely abused discretion and violated substantive due process by:
    a) Conditioning hazard pay on actual days of exposure and risk classification;
    b) Fixing subsistence allowance at ₱50/₱25 without “prevailing circumstances” consultation;
    c) Restricting longevity pay to plantilla positions;
    d) Making the circular effective January 1, 2013, only three days after newspaper publication.
  2. Whether DBM-CSC Circular No. 1 unduly barred longevity‐pay grantees from length-of-service step increments.
  3. Whether the DOH Secretary unlawfully shared rule-making power without legislated authority.
  4. Whether the DOH Secretary defaulted on including Magna Carta benefits in the DOH budget.
  5. Whether respondents issued the DBM-DOH circular sans consultation with professional and health-workers’ organizations.

Respondents’ Counterarguments

– The circulars were issued within the scope of delegated authority under the Joint Resolution and existing laws.
– They constitute quasi-legislative and administrative actions, not judicial or quasi-judicial functions; thus, certiorari and prohibition are improper remedies.
– The Joint Resolution granted the DBM power to “rationalize” Magna Carta benefits, including qualification, condition and rate determinations.
– Publication in a newspaper of general circulation satisfies due-process requirements.

Jurisdictional Analysis

The Court held that certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 lie only against judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial acts. Issuance of subordinate rules by DBM, DOH and CSC are quasi-legislative in nature, involving delegated legislative power, and thus not amenable to those extraordinary writs. Nonetheless, the Court proceeded to address the substantive validity of the circulars to resolve uncertainties over the benefits.

Substantive Review of DBM-DOH Joint Circular

– Hazard Pay Qualification: The requirement of actual exposure to high/low risk for at least 50% of working hours mirrors Revised IRR § 7.1.1.
– Subsistence Allowance Rate: Fixing ₱50/day (₱25/day for part‐time) reflects Revised IRR § 7.2.3.
– Longevity Pay Eligibility: Limiting grant to plantilla holders satisfying performance and disciplinary criteria aligns with Revised IRR § 6.3.1.
Conclusion: These provisions are consistent with, and germane to, RA 7305 and its IRR, and were issued within the agencies’ delegated authority.

Publication, Filing and Effectivity

– RA 7305 Sec. 35 requires IRR to take effect 30 days after publication and filing with the UP Law Center-ONAR.
– Interpretative regulations, which merely reiterate statutory provisions without adding new obligations or affecting substantial rights, need not comply with publication or filing requirements.
– The DBM-DOH circular is interpretative, implements pre-existing rates and qualifications, and was published in the Philippine Star on December 29







...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.