G.R. No. 207145 , July 28, 2015
Gil G. Cawad, et al. and the Philippine Public Health Association, Inc. vs. Florencio B. Abad, as Secretary of the DBM; Enrique T. Ona, as Secretary of the DOH; and Francisco T. Duque III, as Chairman of the CSC

FACTS

Petitioners, officers and members of the Philippine Public Health Association, Inc., assail the validity of two joint circulars: DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2012 dated November 29, 2012, and Item 6.5 of DBM-CSC Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2012 dated September 3, 2012. Republic Act No. 7305, the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers, grants various allowances and benefits to public health workers (PHWs), including hazard allowance, subsistence allowance, and longevity pay. The assailed DBM-DOH Joint Circular prescribed that: (a) hazard pay may be granted only during periods of actual exposure to hazards; (b) subsistence allowance shall be ₱50 for each day of actual full-time service, or ₱25 for each day of actual part-time service; (c) longevity pay shall be granted only to PHWs who hold plantilla and regular positions; and (d) it took effect on January 1, 2013, three days after its publication. The DBM-CSC Joint Circular provided that an official or employee entitled to longevity pay under an existing law is not eligible for the grant of Step Increment due to length of service. Petitioners argue these circulars impose requirements not found in RA 7305, diminish benefits, were issued without proper consultation, and constitute an undue exercise of legislative power.

ISSUE

Whether respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed joint circulars which allegedly violate or diminish the benefits granted by RA 7305, were issued without proper consultation, and constitute an undue exercise of legislative power.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. The Court upheld the validity of the provisions on hazard pay and subsistence allowance in the DBM-DOH Joint Circular. It ruled that the condition of “actual exposure” for hazard pay is consistent with the law’s intent to compensate for actual hazard endured. The fixed rates for subsistence allowance were deemed a valid implementation, as the law grants the Secretary of Health the authority to determine the amount. The provision limiting longevity pay to those holding plantilla and regular positions was declared invalid, as RA 7305 does not make such a distinction and applies to all “public health workers” as defined. The effectivity clause was upheld, as publication on December 29, 2012, satisfied the 30-day requirement for rules to take effect, making January 1, 2013, valid. The DBM-CSC Joint Circular’s provision prohibiting the grant of step increment to those entitled to longevity pay was sustained, as it implements Joint Resolution No. 4, which authorizes the President to modify the compensation system and explicitly prohibits the grant of both benefits. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the circulars, as the respondents acted within their rule-making authority, and the requirement for consultation with health workers’ organizations under RA 7305 was substantially complied with.