G.R. No. 156559 September 30, 2005
RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, EDELWINA DG. PARUNGAO, and REBECCA A. BARBO, Petitioners, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC) and LWUA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS (LEAP), Represented by Its Chairman, LEONARDO C. CRUZ, Respondents.

FACTS

The LWUA Employees Association for Progress (LEAP) filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against certain LWUA officials. The complaint questioned the propriety of LWUA Deputy Administrator Rodolfo de Jesus and other LWUA officers receiving, in addition to their regular salaries, various allowances and benefits—such as Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA), discretionary funds, and extraordinary expenses—from the Olongapo City Water District where they were designated as members of the board of directors. The LWUA officials argued that under Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 198 (the LWUA Charter), LWUA is authorized to appoint its personnel to the board of a financially assisted water district, and such personnel are entitled to the same rights and privileges as regular directors.
The CSC, in its July 11, 1995 Resolution, dismissed the specific charge of violating the Code of Conduct but ruled that it is illegal for any LWUA officer who sits as a water district board member to receive any additional, double, or indirect compensation from said district, except for per diems as allowed under Section 13 of P.D. 198. The CSC anchored its ruling on the constitutional prohibition against double compensation. The LWUA officials, including intervenors Rodolfo de Jesus, Edelwina Parungao, and Rebecca Barbo, elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CSC’s substantive ruling. Petitioners then filed this Petition for Review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether LWUA officers or employees appointed as members of the board of directors of a water district are entitled to receive compensation and allowances beyond the per diems authorized under Section 13 of P.D. 198.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the CSC and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on a clear statutory interpretation of P.D. 198 and the constitutional prohibition against double compensation. Section 13 of P.D. 198 explicitly states that members of the board of directors of water districts “shall receive no compensation other than per diems.” The Court emphasized that words in a statute must be given their natural, ordinary, and commonly accepted meaning. By specifying per diems as the sole compensation, stating a monthly limit, and expressly prohibiting any other compensation, the law clearly mandates that directors are authorized to receive only these per diems.
This interpretation is reinforced by Section 8, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits any elective or appointive public officer or employee from receiving “additional, double, or indirect compensation” unless specifically authorized by law. Since P.D. 198 authorizes only per diems, receiving RATA, discretionary funds, and other allowances constitutes prohibited double compensation for the petitioners, who are already receiving full salaries from LWUA as their primary government agency. The Court rejected the argument that LWUA’s corporate authority to appoint directors grants a blanket right to all board benefits, holding that such an interpretation would contravene the plain language of the governing law and the constitutional safeguard.