G.R. No. 210904 , November 24, 2021
FERDINAND V. TENDENILLA, MARIVIC L. SARAO, MA. IRENE ARSENIA L. BELLO AND MACABANTOG D. BATAO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, HON. MAR A. ROXAS IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HON. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, GEN. RICARDO A. DAVID, JR. IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, BOARD OF AIRLINE REPRESENTATIVES AND AIRLINE OPERATORS COUNCIL, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners are Bureau of Immigration (BI) employees assigned at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Since 1953, various department issuances authorized BI employees to render overtime work at airports and seaports, with compensation, travel, meal, board, and lodging expenses collected from shipping or airline companies, a practice based on Section 7-A of Commonwealth Act No. 613 , as amended. Airline companies later complained about shouldering these costs. Instructed by President Benigno S. Aquino III to resolve the issue, then Department of Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima convened a meeting of the Economic Managers’ Cabinet Cluster on July 31, 2012. The meeting agreed to adopt a 24/7 shifting work schedule to eliminate overtime and have the national government shoulder related costs. On the same date, Secretary Purisima issued a Memorandum to President Aquino outlining this agreement, stating that payment by private entities was a deterrent to tourism and an irregular activity, and directing concerned agencies to stop charging private entities for overtime pay effective August 1, 2012. On August 3, 2012, then Department of Transportation and Communication Secretary Mar Roxas issued a Letter of Instruction directing the Board of Airline Representatives to discontinue paying government employees for overtime services. The Board complied, refusing subsequent billings from BI employees. Petitioners, representing various BI employees’ organizations, filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Injunction with the Court of Appeals, assailing the Memorandum and Letter of Instruction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and upheld the validity and constitutionality of the issuances. Petitioners elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the validity and constitutionality of the July 31, 2012 Memorandum issued by Secretary Purisima and the August 3, 2012 Letter of Instruction issued by Secretary Roxas, which discontinued the long-standing practice of having airline companies pay for the overtime work of Bureau of Immigration employees.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the assailed issuances were valid exercises of executive power and did not violate the petitioners’ constitutional rights. The power of the Commissioner of Immigration under Section 7-A of Commonwealth Act No. 613 to assign overtime work payable by the persons served is merely permissive, not mandatory. The executive branch, through the concerned secretaries, has the authority to alter this policy in the interest of efficiency and to address irregularities. The new policy of implementing a 24/7 shifting schedule and having the government finance overtime services is within the executive’s prerogative to ensure uninterrupted service and eliminate practices deemed detrimental to the tourism industry. The issuances are administrative in nature, intended to correct operational issues, and do not constitute a law or regulation that required congressional approval. The Court also found no violation of the non-impairment clause, as the petitioners have no vested contractual right to be paid by private entities for overtime work; the old practice was based on revocable administrative issuances, not a contract. Furthermore, the policy change applies prospectively and does not deprive employees of compensation for overtime already rendered, as the government assumes the responsibility for payment subject to Civil Service rules. The issuances were a valid response to address complaints and promote good governance.