G.R. No. 156503 & G.R. No. 156481; June 22, 2006
CAMILO P. CABILI, et al., Petitioners, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and LWUA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESS, Respondents. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

The LWUA Employees Association for Progress (LEAP) filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against LWUA Chairman Camilo P. Cabili and Administrator Antonio R. De Vera. The complaint sought an investigation into the multiple directorship of LWUA Deputy Administrator Rodolfo de Jesus in various water districts and his receipt of per diems, representation and transportation allowance (RATA), discretionary funds, and other extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (EME) from these positions, in addition to his regular LWUA salary. The CSC, in its resolutions, dismissed the charges against Cabili and De Vera for violation of the Code of Conduct but ruled it illegal for any LWUA officer sitting as a director of a water district to receive compensation beyond per diems, citing the constitutional prohibition against double compensation.
LWUA officials appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the CSC ruling, holding that LWUA-appointed directors were entitled to per diem, RATA, and travel allowance, but not to other benefits like rice allowance and Christmas bonuses, which it deemed additional compensation. Both the CSC and the LWUA officials filed separate petitions for review with the Supreme Court, challenging different aspects of the CA decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether a LWUA officer or employee, appointed as a member of the board of directors of a water district, is legally entitled to receive compensation and allowances beyond the per diems authorized under Presidential Decree No. 198 (The Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973).

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CSC and reinstated its original resolutions. The Court held that LWUA officers appointed to water district boards are prohibited from receiving any compensation other than per diems. The legal logic rests on the explicit mandate of Section 13 of P.D. No. 198, as amended, which states that directors “shall receive no compensation other than per diems,” with such per diems also subject to a monthly cap. This specific statutory prohibition controls over any general authority claimed by LWUA through its board resolutions.
The Court rejected the argument that such appointments constitute a separate public office entitling the occupant to its full compensation. It emphasized that the constitutional ban on double compensation (Article IX-B, Section 8) is implemented and made unequivocal by the specific law governing water districts. The Court cited its precedent in De Jesus v. Civil Service Commission, which definitively settled that a LWUA official serving as a water district director is authorized to receive only per diems. Therefore, allowances such as RATA, EME, rice allowance, and bonuses constitute illegal additional compensation. The procedural issue on the verification of the complaint was deemed inconsequential, as the substantive legal question was properly addressed.