G.R. No. 160568 ; September 15, 2004
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. HERMOGENES P. POBRE, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Hermogenes P. Pobre, a former government official, retired from government service three times. He first retired as a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit (COA) in 1986, then as Chairman of the Board of Accountancy in 1990, and finally as Chairman of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) in 2001. For his first two retirements, he received corresponding terminal leave pay. Upon his third retirement, Pobre claimed payment for terminal leave benefits computed from his original government employment in 1958, based on his highest salary as PRC Chairman, invoking Section 13 of Commonwealth Act No. 186 . Doubting the claim’s legality, the PRC sought opinions from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the COA.
The CSC, through Resolution Nos. 01-1739 and 02-0236, ruled that Pobre was entitled only to terminal leave benefits accrued from his service as PRC Associate Commissioner and Chairman, not from his entire government career beginning in 1958. Dissatisfied, Pobre elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, contesting the CSC’s jurisdiction and the computation of his benefits.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of a claim for terminal leave benefits, the computation of which involves the examination of government accounts and expenditures.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC does not have exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. While the CSC administers the retirement program and enforces personnel policies, the duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to government expenditures, including terminal leave benefits, is constitutionally vested in the Commission on Audit under Article IX-D, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution . The Court, citing Borromeo v. Civil Service Commission, emphasized that the CSC, COA, and Commission on Elections are independent constitutional commissions, each preeminent in its own sphere. Although the CSC implements leave benefits, the adjudication of monetary claims involving the use of public funds primarily falls under COA’s audit power. Since the COA had not yet rendered an opinion on Pobre’s claim when the CSC issued its resolutions, the CSC acted without jurisdiction. The Court modified the Court of Appeals decision by setting aside its specific ruling on jurisdiction but affirmed the order to await the COA’s resolution of the claim. The proper procedure is for the COA to first rule on the propriety of the monetary claim.