GR 222217; (July, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 222217 , July 27, 2021
Social Security System, Petitioner, vs. Commission on Audit, Respondent.
FACTS
The Social Security System (SSS) Western Mindanao Division paid its officials and employees various allowances totaling Php7,198,182.96. The Commission on Audit (COA) disallowed these payments as excessive and irregular for exceeding the 2010 Corporate Operating Budget approved by the Department of Budget and Management, issuing Notices of Disallowance (ND Nos. 2012-01 and 2012-02). The SSS appealed to the COA Regional Director, arguing that the Social Security Act grants the Social Security Commission the power to fix compensation and that the allowances were neither new nor increased. The COA Regional Director denied the appeals. The SSS then filed a Petition for Review with the COA Commission Proper. The COA Proper dismissed the petition for being filed beyond the 180-day reglementary period, counting from the SSS branch office’s receipt of the Regional Director’s decision on December 23, 2013, to the filing on January 17, 2014. The SSS filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The SSS then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Office of the Solicitor General, while acknowledging the petition was filed five days late, recommended relaxing the procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Petition for Review filed by the SSS before the COA Proper was filed within the reglementary period.
2. Whether the rules of procedure should be relaxed to excuse the SSS’s belated filing.
3. Whether the SSS is exempt from the requirement of prior DBM or Presidential approval for the grant of allowances and benefits under the Social Security Act.
RULING
1. The Petition for Review was filed beyond the reglementary period. The Supreme Court clarified the proper reckoning points: For filing an appeal with the COA Regional Office, the date of mailing (September 21, 2012) is considered the date of filing. For the period to appeal the Regional Director’s decision to the COA Proper, the receipt by the appellant (SSS) triggers the six-month period. The Court held that service of the decision on the SSS branch office (December 23, 2013) was valid, as the officials named in the NDs were stationed there. Thus, counting from December 23, 2013, the SSS had only until December 24, 2013 (the next working day) to file, as the six-month period from the initial appeal had already been exhausted. The filing on January 17, 2014, was therefore late.
2. The Supreme Court relaxed the procedural rules and excused the belated filing. The Court considered the following circumstances: (a) the SSS promptly filed its Petition for Review four days after its legal department received the decision; (b) the delay was minimal (five days beyond the 180-day total period); (c) the case involves a substantial amount and significant legal issues regarding the fiscal autonomy of a major government financial institution; (d) the OSG supported the relaxation of rules; and (e) the paramount public interest in resolving the case on its merits outweighs strict procedural adherence.
3. The SSS is NOT exempt from the requirement of prior DBM or Presidential approval for the grant of new or increased allowances and benefits. The Court ruled that while the Social Security Act grants the Social Security Commission the power to fix compensation, this power is not absolute. It is subject to the general policy of the State to standardize compensation, as embodied in laws like the Salary Standardization Law ( Republic Act No. 6758 ), Presidential Decree No. 1597, Joint Resolution No. 4, s. 2009, and Executive Order No. 7, s. 2010. These laws require that any grant of new or increased allowances, benefits, and incentives by Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs) like the SSS must have the approval of the President, upon recommendation of the DBM. The SSS failed to prove it secured such approval for the disallowed allowances. The Court remanded the case to the COA Proper for a factual determination on which specific allowances were new or increased and whether the SSS sought the required approvals.