Title
Supreme Court
Philippine International Trading Corp. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 132593
Decision Date
Jun 25, 1999
PITC's car plan benefits for incumbents as of July 1, 1989, were upheld by the Supreme Court, ruling RA 6758 protected existing benefits and invalidating COA's disallowance due to DBM-CCC No. 10's non-publication.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 132593)

Background of the Car Plan Program

The PITC, established by Presidential Decree No. 252 in 1973 to foster Philippine trade, implemented a Car Plan Program on October 19, 1988, allowing qualified officers to purchase vehicles at half the cost subsidized by PITC. This initiative aimed to provide eligible officers with more mobility for official business within Metro Manila.

Legislative Framework

Republic Act No. 6758 (RA 6758), effective July 1, 1989, restructured government compensation systems, aiming to standardize salaries and benefits across government-owned and controlled corporations. The law specifically stated that certain allowances, including representation and transportation allowances, would remain authorized for incumbents; however, it mandated consolidation of most other fringe benefits into standardized salary rates.

DBM-CCC No. 10 Regulations

To implement RA 6758, the DBM issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, which discontinued all allowances and fringe benefits granted beyond the basic salary effective November 1, 1989. Payments made after this cutoff date were deemed illegal disbursements of public funds, leading to the COA's subsequent audit and disallowance of PITC's car plan expense reimbursements.

COA's Initial Decision

Following the disallowance, PITC appealed to the COA, which denied the appeal on July 27, 1992. The COA asserted that the Car Plan constituted a fringe benefit that fell outside the listed allowances permissible under DBM-CCC No. 10. The COA's application of the circular ultimately upheld the disallowance of expenses related to the car plan.

Grounds for Petition

PITC's petition, filed subsequently, articulated three key arguments:

  1. The legislature did not intend to annul existing benefits received by government employees prior to RA 6758's passage.
  2. The Car Loan Agreements, executed before RA 6758 came into effect, should be upheld per the constitutional protection against contract impairment.
  3. PITC asserted exemption from provisions of RA 985, claim that its charter allowed comprehensive control over compensation policies.

Court's Ruling on Legislative Intent

The Court favored PITC's position, observing that the legislative intent was to protect existing benefits for incumbents when RA 6758 was enacted. The Court referenced the prior case of Philippine Ports Authority vs. Commission on Audit, emphasizing that the gradual phase-out of benefits would respect the non-diminution of pay principle.

Analysis of COA's Ruling

The Court found COA's reliance on DBM-CCC No. 10 flawed, noting that the circular had been declared ineffective due to the lack of requisite publication in the Official Gazette. This failure to publish rendered the circular void, meaning COA's disallowance lacked a lawful foundation.

Exemption from RA 6758

Addressing whether PITC was exempt from RA 6758, the Court highlighted that PITC's charter specifically allowed for autonomy concerning

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.