Abejo v COA (2022, G.R. No. 251967)

 Bernadette Abejo (Exec Dir of ICAB) v COA

June 14, 2022, G.R. No. 251967

Abejo approved the additional renumeration given to ICAB members who helped in the workload of ICPC when there was a heavy load of applications in 2008-2010. COA said the same had no legal basis. SC: the disallowance was valid, but Abejo, due to good faith, cannot be held liable to return.

Facts: 

    The 1995 Inter-Country Adoption Act (RA 8043) created ICAB, which is the central authority in matters relating to inter-country adoption and policy-making body for carrying out RA 8043. 

    The Inter-Country Adoption Placement Committee (ICPC) is under the direction of ICAB, is tasked to screen, review, evaluate, and eventually decide upon and approve applications of prospective adoptive parents (or PAPs Dossiers).

    Allegedly, there was a heavy load of applications from 2008-2010, thus, ICAB members were asked to help with the review of PAPs Dossiers. Unnumbered memoranda were issued by the undersecretary to compensate the ICAB members.

    COA disallowed the additional renumeration on the following basis: (1) grant has no legal basis, (2) contrary to DBM BC No. 2003-5 and Sec. 49 of RA 9970 (GAA), (3) the Legal Service of DSWD issued a memorandum denying the grant, and (4) Sec 5 of RA 8043 states that ICAB members are only entitled to a per diem of 1,500.

Issues: 

1. W/N COA correctly disallowed the additional remuneration given to ICAB members.

2. W/N Abejo, as Executive Director and approving officer, should be held liable.  

Held: The disallowance is AFFIRMED, but Abejo is ABSOLVED from her solidary liability to return the disallowed amount.

1. While additional work done outside of a government official's regular function may be compensated, the grant of such compensation must still be in accordance with the applicable laws and rules.

    Honorarium cannot be demanded as a matter of right, and the granting of the same must follow the relevant rules. RA 8043 and DBM BC No. 2003-5 prevents ICAB members from receiving additional compensation for the work they have done reviewing PAPs Dossiers. Further, this is not a special project as referred to in RA 9970 (Sec 49). 

    RA 8043 is clear as to the limit of the amount per diem the ICAB members are to receive.

    DBM BC No. 2003-5 prohibits the payment of honoraria to officers already receiving per diem, e.g. ICAB members. 

2. Badges of good faith could be appreciated in favor of Abejo. No prior disallowance of the same benefit has been adjudged against ICAB. There is also no precedent disallowing a similar case in jurisprudence.

Doctrines:

• general rule (procedural): 
• the filing of an MOR is an indispensable condition before the special civil action for certiorari could be availed of.
• XPNS according to Del Rosario v ABS-CBN (Sep 2020, G.R. No. 202481, etc).
• Madera Rules (Madera v COA, G.R. NO. 244128, Sept 8, 2020)
• set of rules in determining the liability of government officers and employees being made to return employee benefits that were disallowed in audit:
1. If a Notice of Disallowance is set aside by the Court, no return shall be required from any of the persons held liable therein.
2. If a Notice of Disallowance is upheld, the rules on return are as follows:
• If in good faith, in regular performance of official functions, and with the diligence of a good father of the family, they are not liable to return.
• If in bad faith, malice, or gross negligence, liable to return

Gatchalian v Urrutia (2022, G.R. No. 223595)

 Sherwin T. Gatchalian v Romeo V. Urrutia

March 16, 2022, G.R. No. 223595

Facts:

    This is a review of a CSC decision. 

    Gatchalian is a former Mayor while Urrutia was a Records Officer in the Council Secretariat.

    In January 2012, Elizabeth Laron, an OJT working in the City Government of Valenzuela Employees Cooperative, lodged a complaint against Urrutia for sexual harassment committed in December 2011. Roberto Darilag, Chairman of the Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board (PCEB),  ordered Urrutia to submit his counter-affidavit, but before Urrutia could do the same, Darilag sent a letter to Laron advising her to amend her complaint to comply with the Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases (CSC Res. No. 01-0940). The Committee recommended that Gatchalian file a formal charge against Urrutia and preventively suspend him, which the former obliged.

    CSC dismisses the case. Ground: Urrutia was an employee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, appointed by the Vice Mayor (Sec 456, LGC); thus, the Mayor is not authorized to issue a formal charge against Urrutia.

Issue: W/N the Mayor has no jurisdiction to discipline the SP employee (following the principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint).

Held: Gatchalian as mayor had the power to issue a formal charge and a preventive suspension order against Urrutia.

Sec 455(b)(1)(x) of LGC provides that the Mayor can cause to be instituted administrative or judicial proceedings against any official or employee of the city who may have committed and offense in the performance of his official duties.

Sec 87 of LGC also empowers the Chief Executive to impose appropriate penalty on erring subordinate employees under her/his jurisdiction.

Doctrines:

• Doctrine of implication in relation to Sec 456, LGC:
• VM's power to appoint employees of the SP carries with it the power to discipline the same employees
• General rule re appointment and discipline
• the power to appoint carries with it the power to discipline.
• XPN: the power to discipline/remove is expressly vested in another office or authority.
• CSC Res. No. 01-0940 (Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases)
• applies to government employees 
• Sec 7, Rule VI provides that the a Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) must be constituted in all agencies with the original charter. 

SSS v Violeta Simacas (2022, G.R. No. 217866)

 SSS v. Violeta Simacas

June 20, 2022, G.R. No. 217866

Violeta's husband worked in a factory handling stainless steel. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer and died. Violeta claimed for death benefits which the Commission denied since prostate cancer is not listed as an occupational disease. SC: It suffices to establish that working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease.

Facts:

Irnido, husband of the appellee (Violeta) was a Fabricaiton Helper at FIELDSTAR from 1995 to 2010. Two years before retiring,  Irnido complained of back pains and incessant coughing. In 2010, he was diagnosed with "Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BHP) T/C (to consider) Prostatic Cancer and Pneumonia vs. Pulmonary Tuberculosis." He retired in February 2010, and died in July 2010.

Violeta filed a claim for employee's compensation benefits, denied by SSS (ground: the death was a non-occupational disease). It was ruled that prostatic adenocarcinoma or prostate cancer was not considered an occupational disease.

CA reversed the decision and ordered SSS to pay Violeta's claim for death benefits. Grounds:

• PD 626 is a social legislation that must be liberally interpreted in favor of claims
• It was impossible to present evidence of causal relation since the specific cause for prostate caner is medically unknown.
• "obligation to present such impossible evidence...must, therefore, be deemed void"

Issue: W/N Violeta is entitled to death benefits under PD 626, as amended.

Held: Yes, Violeta is entitled to death benefits. A review of the records reveal that Violeta proved that Irnido's working conditions increased the risk of him contracting prostate cancer.

Violeta cited medical journals stating that work-related exposures to certain substances (e.g. chromium) have the potential of affecting the risk of getting prostate cancer. A study also stated that "workers engaged in the manufacturing or handling stainless steel are exposed to chromium at varying degrees".

Doctrines:

• For a non-occupational disease to be compensable, substantial evidence must be presented to prove that the risk of contracting the illness was aggravated by the employee's working conditions. 
• it suffices to establish that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions
• not necessary to show direct causal relation
• "It is enough that the hypothesis on which the claim is based is probable. Medical opinion to the contrary can be disregarded especially where there is some basis in the facts for inferring a work-connection. Probability not certainty is the touchstone." (Sarmiento v ECC, 1986)
• Substantial evidence: such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
• LC defines sickness as: 
• any illness definitely accepted as an occupational disease listed by the Commission, or any illness caused by employment subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions.
• If non-occupational disease
• Proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions