Title
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 144516
Decision Date
Feb 11, 2004
DBP's Gratuity Plan Fund income deemed separate from DBP revenue, but SLP dividend distribution disallowed for violating retirement laws.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 144516)

Formation and Administration of the Gratuity Plan

By Resolution No. 794 (Feb. 20, 1980), DBP established an express trust—the Gratuity Plan Fund—for retiring officials and employees under CA 186 (as amended). A Trust Indenture (Feb. 26, 1980) transferred legal title and control of the Fund to a Board of Trustees, who appointed DBP-Trust Services Department (DBP-TSD) as investment manager.

Suspension and Revival of the Special Loan Program

In 1983, DBP funded a Special Loan Program using the Gratuity Plan Fund to allow prospective retirees to borrow against their accrued equity and invest in approved instruments. Suspended in 1986, the program was reinstated by DBP Board Resolution No. 066 (Jan. 5, 1991).

Audit Observation and COA Disallowance

AOM No. 93-2 (Mar. 1, 1993) disallowed the P11.6 million in net earnings paid to investor-members for 1991–1992, labeling the distribution an irregular use of public funds prohibited by PD 1445, § 4, and directed refund and reclassification as miscellaneous income of DBP.

COA Rulings and Denial of Reconsideration

COA en banc (Oct. 6, 1998) held the SLP to be a cirumvention of retirement laws, grossly disadvantageous to government, and a prohibited supplementary retirement plan under CA 186, § 28(b) (as amended by RA 4968). A second motion was denied (Aug. 1, 2000), citing Conte v. COA on financial assistance constituting supplementary benefits.

Issues Presented

  1. DBP’s standing to file certiorari
  2. Whether the Gratuity Plan Fund income constitutes DBP’s income
  3. Validity of dividend distributions under the SLP

Standing of the Development Bank of the Philippines

DBP has standing as the sole party before COA and as trustor with a material interest in fund administration. Section 7, Art. IX of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 64 permit government agencies to seek certiorari against COA rulings.

Nature and Ownership of the Gratuity Plan Fund

The Board Resolution and Trust Agreement created an express employees’ trust. DBP (trustor) transferred legal title and investment powers to trustees for the exclusive benefit of employees. Principal and income are distinct from DBP’s assets and cannot revert to the Bank except to satisfy Plan liabilities.

Grave Abuse in COA’s Income Reclassification

COA’s directive to record fund earnings as DBP income mischaracterizes the Fund’s separate identity. The trustees alone hold and administer Fund proceeds; DBP cannot co-opt those earnings for its own use without defeating the trust’s purpose.

Invalidity of Early Dividend Distribution under Retirement Law

RA 1616 and the Gratuity Plan require actual retirement before benefits may be claimed. The SLP’s partial release of inchoate gratuity rights through a “loan” mechanism violates statutory prerequisite

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.