Title
Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 205490
Decision Date
Sep 22, 2020
PSALM challenged COA's disallowance of expanded medical benefits, citing CSC and AO 402. SC upheld COA, ruling benefits exceeded legal scope; officers and employees liable for repayment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205490)

Applicable Law

The relevant statutes for this case include Administrative Order No. 402 (AO 402) and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 33, which stipulate guidelines for the provision of health programs in government offices, particularly concerning medical check-ups.

Background of the Case

PSALM implemented various health programs under Board Resolutions that expanded its medical assistance program beyond the initial diagnostic benefits envisaged in AO 402, which only approved basic check-up procedures. Despite the program's alignment with AO 402, the COA issued Notices of Disallowance after finding that many granted benefits exceeded what was legally permissible.

Disallowance Findings

The COA found that PSALM's expansion of benefits to include reimbursements for prescription drugs, dental treatments, and additional services to dependents violated the provisions of AO 402, which solely supports employee health check-ups. This interpretation strictly adhered to the principle of ejusdem generis, wherein additional benefits must be similar to those explicitly mentioned.

The Court's Ruling

The court affirmed the COA's decisions stating that the expanded MABs lacked legal basis. The court determined that the prior disallowance of benefits under AO 402 should have prompted PSALM to cease further implementations. Furthermore, the court established that any benefits outside the scope of AO 402 were unauthorized, reaffirming the necessity of compliance with established budgets, which PSALM exceeded.

Liability of PSALM Officers and Employees

The court assessed the liability of PSALM's officers and employees for the unauthorized benefits granted. It found that while officers acted without malice, their lack of due diligence constituted gross negligence given the clear limitations set by AO 402. Hence, both the officers who approved the disallowed amounts and the employees who received payments were held jointly and sev

...continue reading

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