Title
Philippine Ports Authority vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 100773
Decision Date
Oct 16, 1992
PPA officials' RATA payments under LOI No. 97 were partially upheld; first category officials retained benefits as incumbents, while second category officials' retroactive grants were invalid under RA No. 6758.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 100773)

Applicable Law and Legislative Background

The PPA was established under Presidential Decree No. 857 and tasked with the administration and operation of ports in the Philippines. Significant legislative acts relevant to this case include Presidential Decree No. 985, which aimed to standardize government compensation, and Republic Act No. 6758, which revised the compensation and position classification systems applicable to government employees, including those in government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). Letter of Implementation No. 97 (LOI No. 97) was issued under PD No. 985, allowing for RATA of up to 40% of basic salary for managerial and supervisory positions.

RATA Framework and Changes

PPA issued Memorandum Circular No. 57-87, entitling first-category officials to RATA equivalent to 40% of their basic salary. Subsequent to the passage of RA No. 6758, PPA revised RATA parameters in Memorandum Circular No. 36-89, which provided for a reduced RATA to 20% for second-category officials, later increased back to 40% under Memorandum Circular No. 46-90. These adjustments occurred amid significant changes resulting from the new law, impacting how allowances were administered.

COA's Audit Findings

The COA subsequently disallowed the RATA payments made to PPA officials, asserting that any increases in allowances post-June 30, 1989—the cutoff for the enactment of RA No. 6758—were irregular and thus illegal. The COA argued that LOI No. 97 had been implicitly repealed by the provisions of RA No. 6758, particularly Section 16, which aimed to consolidate compensation structures among government officials.

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners contended that LOI No. 97 had not been repealed and that previous opinions from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) supported the allowance of increased RATA payments under LOI No. 97. They argued that the intent of RA No. 6758 was not to eliminate RATA entirely but to standardize its implementation across different agencies.

Respondents' Position

In contrast, the respondents maintained that RA No. 6758 superseded LOI No. 97. They referred to the legislation's comprehensive nature, which was intended to replace previous decrees and laws regarding compensation. The COA argued that provisions related to allowances were integrated into the new standardized salary rates, thereby requiring a reevaluation of what constitutes appropriate RATA under the new law.

Court's Decision on RATA Entitlement

The Court recognized a distinction between two categories of petitioners: those who were incumbents receiving RATA prior to July 1, 1989 (the effective date of RA No. 6758), and those whose RATA was established post-implementation of RA No. 6758. The Court found that only those in the first category had a right to continued RATA under LOI No. 97, as they were clearly incumbent

...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.