G.R. No. 254757, November 26, 2024
DOMINADOR T. VILLANUEVA, JR., EDMUNDO L. YASAY, EDGARDO M. ADALIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS, GOVERNANCE COMMISSION FOR GOVERNMENT OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AND DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPARTMENT SECRETARY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners are 75 former officials and employees of the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA). In 2015, the SRA formulated an Organizational Strengthening Rationalization Plan (RATPLAN) to strengthen its structure. The Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG) approved this RATPLAN on April 12, 2016, via Memorandum Order (MO) No. 2016-05. A condition for implementation was that the SRA “adopt and offer the retirement and separation package for the affected personnel… using the incentives provided under EO No. 203,” and implement the new structure “within two (2) months after receipt of this M.O.” EO No. 203, issued on March 22, 2016, authorized the GCG to implement a Compensation and Position Classification System (CPCS) and permitted the grant of an early retirement incentive (ERIP). The SRA subsequently invited employees to avail of the ERIP. Petitioners applied and were separated from service effective August 1, 2016. The SRA approved a supplemental budget for their ERIP benefits and submitted it to the DBM for approval on June 22, 2016. However, on August 8, 2016, the GCG advised the SRA to withhold payment of the ERIP pending the issuance of implementing guidelines for EO No. 203. The DBM also excluded the ERIP budget request from the SRA’s approved 2016 Corporate Operating Budget. Later, on July 28, 2017, President Duterte issued EO No. 36 suspending the CPCS and ERIP under EO No. 203. Due to the non-release of their benefits, 69 of the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which was dismissed on July 3, 2019. The CSC, however, stated petitioners could seek proper remedies elsewhere. Petitioners then filed the present petition for mandamus to compel the release of their ERIP benefits.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the respondents to release the petitioners’ ERIP benefits.

RULING

No. The petition for mandamus is not the proper remedy.
The Court ruled that mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty that is clear and specific, arising from law or official station, and is not discretionary. The grant of ERIP benefits under EO No. 203 was not a ministerial duty but a discretionary act contingent upon the issuance of implementing guidelines by the GCG, as expressly required by Section 3 of EO No. 203. Since the GCG never issued these guidelines, the right to the ERIP never accrued. Furthermore, the subsequent suspension of the ERIP program by EO No. 36 in 2017 extinguished any potential claim. The Court also found that the SRA’s act of separating the petitioners effective August 1, 2016, was in compliance with the GCG’s directive in MO No. 2016-05 to implement the new structure within two months, and this separation was distinct from the entitlement to the discretionary ERIP incentive. The obligation to pay standard retirement benefits under existing laws (like RA 10154) remains, but the specific ERIP package under EO No. 203 cannot be compelled via mandamus as its release was never a clear ministerial duty. The petition was dismissed for being an improper remedy.