SC orders PhilHealth execs to return unauthorized P83-M in benefits.

Benefits include education allowance, birthday gift. 

The court pointed out that the Educational Assistance Allowance (EAA) and birthday gifts are not among the law's allowable "non-integrated" allowances, and that their disbursements could amount to "double compensation." 

The Supreme Court has upheld a Commission on Audit (COA) ruling disallowing the release of P83 million in benefits to PhilHealth officials and employees in its head office and some regional offices in 2014. 

Voting 13-0, with 2 justices on official business, the Supreme Court en banc said PhilHealth is not exempted from the provisions of the Salary Standardization Law. 

SC stated that "it is already settled that PhilHealth does not have absolute discretion in determining the compensation of its officials," citing several of its previous decisions. 

"Its authority over personnel compensation is limited, and it "must necessarily yield to the state policy of 'equal pay for equal work." Thus, any disbursement of allowances and other forms of employee compensation must comply with prevailing rules and regulations issued by the President of the Philippines and/or the [DBM]," said Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting in a ruling. 

The ruling referred to the PhilHealth board's resolutions granting benefits without the approval of the executive and the Department of Budget and Management as "ultra vires" acts, while the disbursements were deemed "illegal and irregular." 

According to the ruling, payees are only exempt from returning funds if they were given in exchange for services rendered or if the court excuses them based on undue prejudice, social justice considerations, or other exceptions determined on a case-by-case basis. 

"The Court does not find any of the above-mentioned exceptions to be availing in the present case. First, the EAA and Birthday Gift payments lack legal foundation... These were granted ultra vires and cannot be considered valid CNA incentives (Rule 2c of the Madera case)," it stated.

The end.

-----

If you believe this Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking ADS once a day. 

This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.