GIL G. CAWAD, MARIO BENEDICT P. GALON, DOMINGO E. LUSAYA, JEAN V. APOLINARES, MA. LUISA S. OREZCA, JULIO R. GARCIA, NESTOR M. INTIA, RUBEN C. CALIWATAN, ADOLFO Q. ROSALES, MA. L…

Cawad versus Abad

The Case

This is a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition brought by the officers and members of the Philippine Public Health Association, Inc. against the Secretaries of Budget and Management, Health, and the Civil Service Commission. The petitioners assail the validity of two joint circulars: the budget and health departments' Joint Circular Number 1 of 2012, which set the rules on hazard pay, subsistence allowance, and longevity pay for public health workers, and the budget and civil service Joint Circular Number 1 of 2012, which barred those already receiving longevity pay from also receiving a step increment due to length of service. The case matters because it maps the boundary between quasi-legislative rule-making and the reach of the extraordinary writs, and because it tells us when an administrative circular merely interprets an existing law and therefore needs no fresh publication.

Procedural History

The petitioners first wrote the Secretary of Budget and Management and the Secretary of Health in January 2013, expressing their opposition to the joint circular on the ground that it diminished the benefits granted by the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers. Receiving no satisfaction, they went directly to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, filed in May 2013. There were no prior rulings by a trial court or by the Court of Appeals. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, answered that the circulars were issued within the scope of their authority and questioned the petitioners' choice of remedy, since the circulars were issued in the exercise of quasi-legislative rather than judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The Supreme Court resolved the petition in due course.

Facts

On March 26, 1992, Republic Act Number 7305, the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers, was signed into law to promote the social and economic well-being of health workers and to encourage qualified persons to join and remain in government service. It granted public health workers additional compensation in the form of hazard allowance, subsistence allowance, longevity pay, laundry allowance, and remote assignment allowance. Pursuant to the law, the Secretary of Health promulgated implementing rules in July 1992, and in November 1999 issued a Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations consolidating all additional and clarificatory rules issued by former Secretaries of Health.

On July 28, 2008, the Fourteenth Congress issued Joint Resolution Number 4, authorizing the President to modify the compensation and position classification system of civilian personnel and the base pay schedule of military and uniformed personnel, and this was approved by the President on June 17, 2009. It provided for certain amendments to the Magna Carta and its implementing rules.

On September 3, 2012, the budget and civil service departments issued the first assailed circular, prescribing the rules on step increments due to meritorious performance and step increments due to length of service, and providing that an official or employee authorized to be granted longevity pay under an existing law is not eligible for a step increment due to length of service. On November 29, 2012, the budget and health departments circulated the second assailed circular, which required that hazard pay be granted only during periods of actual exposure to hazards and hardships, fixed subsistence allowance at 50 pesos for each day of actual full-time service and 25 pesos for part-time service, and granted longevity pay only to public health workers holding positions in the agency plantilla of regular positions. The petitioners opposed the circulars in a letter dated January 23, 2013, and then filed this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the validity of the joint circulars issued by the administrative agencies.
• Whether or not the budget and health departments acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing their joint circular, specifically in making hazard pay depend on actual days of exposure, in fixing subsistence allowance without regard to prevailing circumstances, and in limiting longevity pay to holders of plantilla and regular positions.
• Whether or not the budget and civil service joint circular acted with grave abuse of discretion in providing that an official or employee entitled to longevity pay under existing law shall no longer be granted a step increment due to length of service.
• Whether or not the joint circulars are null and void for being an undue exercise of legislative power by administrative bodies.
• Whether or not the joint circulars are null and void for having been issued without consultation with professional and health workers' organizations and unions, and for premature effectivity and lack of publication.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This provision governs whether the petitioners chose the correct remedy, since certiorari lies only against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

Section 2 of Rule 65 provides:

Section 2. Petition for Prohibition. - When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This provision defines the narrower reach of prohibition, which likewise does not extend to the exercise of quasi-legislative functions.

Section 21 of Republic Act Number 7305 provides:

Section 21. Hazard Allowance. - Public health workers in hospitals, sanitaria, rural health units, main health centers, health infirmaries, barangay health stations, clinics and other health-related establishments located in difficult areas, strife-torn or embattled areas, distressed or isolated stations, prisons camps, mental hospitals, radiation-exposed clinics, laboratories or disease-infested areas or in areas declared under state of calamity or emergency for the duration thereof which expose them to great danger, contagion, radiation, volcanic activity/eruption, occupational risks or perils to life as determined by the Secretary of Health or the Head of the unit with the approval of the Secretary of Health, shall be compensated hazard allowances equivalent to at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the monthly basic salary of health workers receiving salary grade 19 and below, and five percent (5%) for health workers with salary grade 20 and above.

This is the statutory basis for hazard pay, which the assailed circular merely implemented in line with the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Section 22 of Republic Act Number 7305 provides:

Section 22. Subsistence Allowance. - Public health workers who are required to render service within the premises of hospitals, sanitaria, health infirmaries, main health centers, rural health units and barangay health stations, or clinics, and other health-related establishments in order to make their services available at any and all times, shall be entitled to full subsistence allowance of three (3) meals which may be computed in accordance with prevailing circumstances as determined by the Secretary of Health in consultation with the Management-Health Worker's Consultative Councils, as established under Section 33 of this Act: Provided, That representation and travel allowance shall be given to rural health physicians as enjoyed by municipal agriculturists, municipal planning and development officers and budget officers.

This is the statutory basis for subsistence allowance, whose rates the circular fixed consistently with the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations.

Section 23 of Republic Act Number 7305 provides:

Section 23. Longevity Pay. - A monthly longevity pay equivalent to five percent (5%) of the monthly basic pay shall be paid to a health worker for every five (5) years of continuous, efficient and meritorious services rendered as certified by the chief of office concerned, commencing with the service after the approval of this Act.

This is the statutory basis for longevity pay, which the circular limited to holders of regular plantilla positions in keeping with the requirement of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that certiorari and prohibition are not the proper remedies. Certiorari is available only against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, while prohibition lies against judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions. Here, the respondents did not act in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial capacity. In issuing the circulars, they were not called upon to adjudicate the rights of contending parties. Their issuance and enforcement of the circulars were done in the exercise of quasi-legislative and administrative functions, in the nature of subordinate legislation promulgated under delegated power. Quasi-legislative power is exercised by administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules and regulations within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of powers. The Court nevertheless proceeded to discuss the substantive issues to finally resolve the doubt over the circulars' validity.

On the second issue, the Court held that the budget and health departments did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The qualification on hazard pay was merely derived from the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations, which provide:

SECTION 7.1.1. Eligibility to Receive Hazard Pay. — All public health workers covered under RA 7305 are eligible to receive hazard pay when the nature of their work exposes them to high risk/low risk hazards for at least fifty percent (50%) of their working hours as determined and approved by the Secretary of Health or his authorized representatives.

The fixing of subsistence allowance was likewise a reiteration of the limits prescribed by the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations, which provide:

Section 7.2.3 Rates of Subsistence Allowance a. Subsistence allowance shall be implemented at not less than PhP50.00 per day or PhP1,500.00 per month as certified by head of agency. d. Part-time public health workers/consultants are entitled to one-half (1/2) of the prescribed rates received by full-time public health workers.

The condition limiting longevity pay to holders of regular plantilla positions merely implemented the qualification imposed by the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations, and the petitioners failed to show any real inconsistency, since the intent of longevity pay necessarily coincides with that of regularization.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the budget and civil service circular, as it was issued within the scope of the agencies' authority and was germane to the purposes of the law.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the circulars were not an undue exercise of legislative power, since they were promulgated within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of powers.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the circulars were valid despite the alleged lack of publication and consultation. Publication is a basic postulate of procedural due process, but interpretative regulations are an exception, for they need nothing further than their bare issuance since they give no real consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed. Such regulations need not be published because they add nothing to the law and do not affect substantial rights of any person. Since the assailed circulars merely interpreted and implemented the Magna Carta and its Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations without modifying, amending, or supplanting them, they cannot be rendered ineffective for lack of publication.

Doctrine

First, certiorari and prohibition do not lie against the exercise of quasi-legislative functions. These extraordinary writs are confined to judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, and may not be used to test the validity of administrative rules and regulations issued under delegated legislative power.

Second, an administrative circular that merely interprets, reiterates, or implements an existing law and its valid implementing rules does not require publication to be effective. It is an interpretative regulation, and it adds nothing to the law and affects no substantial rights beyond what the statute already prescribes.

Third, administrative agencies may issue rules and regulations only within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of powers. So long as the circular is reasonable, consistent with, and germane to the purposes of the law, it is valid and binding.

Disposition

The petition was partly granted, with the Court upholding the validity of the assailed joint circulars while denying the relief of certiorari and prohibition on the ground that those remedies do not lie against the exercise of quasi-legislative functions.

Remember This

Memorize this line: certiorari and prohibition do not lie against quasi-legislative acts, and interpretative regulations need no publication because they add nothing to the law. Examiners use this case to test the proper remedy against administrative circulars and the publication exception for interpretative rules.