EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 222710. July 24, 2018 ]
PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G. AGUINALDO, DIRECTOR JOSEPH B. ANACAY AND SUPERVISING AUDITOR ELENA L. AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.
DISSENTING OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
The ponencia resolves to dismiss the petition ruling that on both procedural and substantive aspects of the case, the petition fails. The ponencia rules that the Petition for Review filed by Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) before the Commission on Audit (COA) Commission Proper was filed out of time, and even if the rules of procedure were to be liberally construed, the petition would still not prosper because PhilHealth personnel are not public health workers.
With all due respect, I disagree.
The facts are as follows:
Section 20 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7305, known as the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers, mandates the payment of longevity pay, hazard allowance, subsistence allowance, laundry allowance and remote assignment allowance to public health workers.
Former Department of Health (DOH) Secretary Alberto G. Romualdez, Jr. issued a Certification dated February 20, 2000 (Certification) declaring PhilHealth officers and employees as public health workers within the contemplation of RA 7305.1 Thereafter, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) in its Opinion 064, Series of 2001, dated April 26, 2001, likewise declared that PhilHealth officers and employees are public health workers within the meaning of RA 7305.2
The Board of Directors of PhilHealth (PhilHealth BOD) passed and approved Resolution 1584, s. 2012 dated January 31, 2012 confirming the grant of public health workers benefits, such as longevity pay, under RA 7305, effective January 1, 2012, to PhilHealth officers and employees.3
On post-audit, however, COA Supervising Auditor, Elena Agustin (Agustin) issued Audit Observation Memorandum Order 2012-09 (11) stating that the payment of longevity pay lacks legal basis, and thus, recommended the discontinuance of the grant thereof.4 PhilHealth, through its former President and CEO, Dr. Eduardo P. Banzon, submitted its Reply asserting that PhilHealth personnel are public health workers.5 Thereafter, Agustin issued Notice of Disallowance H.O. 12-005 (11) (ND).6 PhilHealth received the NO on July 30, 2012. PhilHealth had six (6) months from July 30, 2012 within which to file its appeal.7
PhilHealth filed its Appeal Memorandum to the COA Director on January 25, 2013.8 The COA Director issued CGS-6 Decision 2014-002 dated March 13, 2014 (CGS Decision) upholding the disallowance.9 PhilHealth received the CGS Decision on March 25, 2014.10 On March 31, 2014 (since March 30, 2014 was a Sunday), PhilHealth filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review requesting an extension of one month from March 30, 2014 or until April 30, 2014 within which to file its Petition for Review.11 Said Petition for Review was filed on April 30, 2014 before the COA Commission Proper.12
On May 6, 2015, PhilHealth received a copy of the COA Decision 2015-094 dated April 1, 2015 (COA Decision) dismissing PhilHealth's Petition for Review for being filed out of time.13 PhilHealth moved for reconsideration which was likewise denied through a November 9, 2015 Notice/Resolution (COA Resolution).14
PhilHealth filed the current special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64, to set aside or nullify the COA Decision and COA Resolution, disallowing the payment of longevity pay to PhilHealth officers and employees which amounts to P5,575,294.70.15
The Court may relax the strict application of the rules of procedure if it would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice.
Rule V16 of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the COA (COA Revised Rules of Procedure) states that an appeal from the decision of the auditor to the director must be taken by filing an appeal memorandum within six (6) months after receipt of the decision appealed from. Rule VII17 of the aforementioned rules provides that a party aggrieved by the decision of the director may appeal to the COA Commission Proper via a petition for review filed within the time remaining of the six (6) months period under Section 4, Rule V.
In the case at bar, PhilHealth asserts that the six (6) months period shall be counted from the exact date of the month up to the day prior to the same date of the following month, while the COA believes that the six (6) months period shall be computed as 180 days.
The appeal timelines as interpreted by PhilHealth and COA are illustrated as follows:
| PhilHealth |
| PhilHealth's receipt of the ND of the Auditor |
JULY 30, 2012 |
| Date of Filing of Appeal Memorandum with CGS Cluster 6 Director |
JANUARY 25, 2013
PhilHealth asserts that it had until January 30, 2013 to file the Appeal Memorandum. Thus, upon filing on January 25, 2013, it claims it still had 5 days remaining of the six (6) months period. |
| Date of PhilHealth's Receipt of CGS Decision dated March 13, 2014 |
MARCH 25, 2014
Appeal from the decision of the Director shall be taken within the time remaining of the six (6) months period. |
| Date of PhilHealth's filing of Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review |
MARCH 31, 2014
On its belief that it still had 5 days left, PhilHealth counted March 30, 2014 as the last day to file its motion for extension. Since March 30 was a Sunday, the motion was filed on the next working day, March 31, 2014, which was a Monday. |
| Date of Filing of Petition for Review with the COA Commission Proper |
APRIL 30, 2014
PhilHealth claims that since it was able to file the motion for extension within the deadline, it had until April 30, 2014 to file the Petition for Review. Thus, its Petition for Review was filed on time. |
| COA |
| PhilHealth's receipt of the ND of the Auditor |
JULY 30, 2012 |
| Date of Filing of Appeal Memorandum with CGS Cluster 6 Director |
JANUARY 25, 2013
The COA, on the other hand, claims that PhilHealth had until January 26, 2013 to file the Appeal Memorandum as this is the 180th day from July 30, 2012. And since this was filed on January 25, 2013, PhilHealth had only one day remaining from the six (6) months period. |
| Date of PhilHealth's Receipt of CGS Decision dated March 13, 2014 |
MARCH 25, 2014
Appeal from the decision of the Director shall be taken within the time remaining of the six (6) months period. |
| Date of PhilHealth's filing of Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review |
MARCH 31, 2014
The COA asserts that the motion for extension or Petition for Review should have been filed on March 26, 2014. Hence, the filing on March 31, 2014 was already late and beyond the allowed period. |
| Date of Filing of Petition for Review with the COA Commission Proper |
APRIL 30, 2014
Thus, it is the COA's position that the Petition for Review was filed out of time. |
Both Article 13 of the Civil Code and Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 deal with the same subject matter - the computation of legal periods.18
Article 13 of the Civil Code reads:
ART. 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, in turn, states:
SECTION 31. Legal Periods. - "Year" shall be understood to be twelve calendar months; "month" of thirty days, unless it refers to a specific calendar month in which case it shall be computed according to the number of days the specific month contains; "day" to a day of twenty-four hours; and "night" from sunset to sunrise. (Emphasis supplied)
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Primetown Property Group, Inc.,19 the Court found that there exists a manifest incompatibility in the manner of computing legal periods under the Civil Code and the Administrative Code of 1987, specifically as regards the computation of a year, thus, Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, being the more recent law, governs the computation of legal periods. Lex posteriori derogat priori.
The COA Revised Rules of Procedure does not explicitly provide the manner on how the period in contest shall be computed. Hence, applying Section 31, Chapter VIII, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, which now governs the computation of legal periods, the six (6) months period constitutes 180 days. Further, this Court in Torres v. Commission on Audit20 stated as follows: "the 6-month or 180-day reglementary period shall be reckoned from the petitioners' date of receipt of the Auditor's Notice of Disallowance on November 6, 2009."
With the foregoing, it is clear that the Petition for Review of PhilHealth before the COA Commission Proper was filed out of time. However, the Court, even as it has at times acknowledged that procedural rules should be treated with utmost respect and due regard, has likewise, from time to time, recognized exceptions based on the most compelling reasons where stubborn obedience to it would defeat rather than serve the ends of justice.21 Indeed, where strong considerations of substantive justice are manifest in the petition, the Court is called upon to relax the strict application of the rules of procedure in the exercise of its legal jurisdiction.22
Thus, despite the Petition for Review having been filed out of time, the Court should entertain it to finally put to rest the question of whether PhilHealth personnel are public health workers and whether they are entitled to the benefits granted to public health workers.
PhilHealth personnel are public health workers.1âшphi1
Section 3 of RA 7305 defines the term health workers as follows:
x x x "health workers" shall mean all persons who are engaged in health and health-related work, and all persons employed in all hospitals, sanitaria, health infirmaries, health centers, rural health units, barangay health stations, clinics and other health-related establishments owned and operated by the Government or its political subdivisions with original charters and shall include medical, allied health professional, administrative and support personnel employed regardless of their employment status. (Emphasis supplied)
Rule III of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 7305 further define public health workers as follows:
1. Public Health Workers (PWH) - Persons engaged in health and health-related works. These cover employees in any of the following:
a. Any government entity whose primary function according to its legal mandate is the delivery of health services and the operation of hospitals, sanitaria, health infirmaries, health centers, rural health units, barangay health stations, clinics or other institutional forms which similarly perform health delivery functions, like clinical laboratories, treatment and rehabilitation centers, x-ray facilities and other similar activities involving the rendering of health services to the public; and
b. Offices attached to agencies whose primary function according to their legal mandates involves provision, financing or regulation of health services.
Also covered are medical and allied health professionals, as well as administrative and support personnel, regardless of their employment status. (Emphasis supplied)
PhilHealth's mandate includes not only providing health insurance coverage, but also ensuring affordable, acceptable, available and accessible health care services for all citizens of the Philippines.23 Moreover, the enumerated powers and functions of PhilHealth include the accreditation of health care providers, inspection of health care institutions, setting of standards and rules to ensure quality of health care and appropriate utilization of health services, contracting with health provider organizations for the provision of personal health services, enrollment of members and dependents, establishment of an efficient premium payment collection mechanism, registration of all government and private employers, administration of health benefit package and improvement of the system for its availment, performance monitoring of health care providers and supervision of health benefits, among others.24
Further, Section 14, Article IV of RA 7875, as amended, provides that PhilHealth is attached to the DOH for coordination and guidance.
SEC. 14. Creation and Nature of the Corporation - There is hereby created a Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, which shall have the status of a tax-exempt government corporation attached to the Department of Health for policy coordination and guidance.
With the foregoing, the more reasonable interpretation is that PhilHealth personnel are engaged in health and health-related work and that they specifically fall under the definition provided in Rule III, 1(b) of the IRR of RA 7305 which pertains to those offices attached to agencies whose primary function according to their legal mandates involves provision, financing or regulation of health services.
Moreover, in Philippine Health Insurance Corporation v. Commission on Audit,25 the Court upheld the validity of the issuance of the Welfare Support Assistance (WESA) of P4,000.00 each to PhilHealth personnel, in lieu of the subsistence and laundry allowances paid to public health workers under RA 7305. The statement of the Court, quoted below, leads to the conclusion that the Court has acquiesced that PhilHealth personnel are public health workers. In fact, the issue decided by the Court was not so much on the propriety of the subsistence and laundry allowances in the form of the WESA, but that the Secretary of Health prescribed the rates thereof not in accordance with RA 7305.26 This very statement is a recognition by the Court that there was no dispute that PhilHealth personnel were covered by RA 7305 and are therefore public health workers, to wit:
In a similar manner, the Court finds that the PHIC's grant of the WESA was aptly sanctioned not only by Section 1227 of the [Salary Standardization Law] but also by statutory authority. PHIC Board Resolution No. 385, S. 2001 states that the WESA of P4,000.00 each shall be paid to public health workers under the Magna Carta of PHWs in lieu of the subsistence and laundry allowances. Respondent COA contested the same not so much on the propriety of the subsistence and laundry allowances in the form of the WESA, but that the Secretary of Health prescribed the rates thereof not in accordance with the Magna Carta of PHWs. x x x28
On the issue of whether PhilHealth officers and employees were in good faith when they allowed and/or received the longevity pay, I rule in the affirmative. PhilHealth's BOD Resolution 1584, s. 2012 dated January 31, 2012 confirming the grant of public health workers' benefits, including the longevity pay to PhilHealth officers and employees, was issued on the basis of the Certification and OGCC Opinion 064. Further, the receipt of the benefit by the officers and employees was upon the honest belief that there was legal basis to such and thus, they are entitled to it.
Accordingly, I vote that the petition be GRANTED and that COA Decision 2015-094 dated April 1, 2015 and Resolution dated November 9, 2015, affirming the notice of disallowance, be REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, p. 7.
2 Id.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 7-8.
5 Id. at 8.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 See id. at 8-9.
11 Id. at 9.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 4.
16 Rule V, Secs. 1, 2 and 4 provide:
Section 1. Who May Appeal. - An aggrieved party may appeal from the decision of the Auditor to the Director who has jurisdiction over the agency under audit.
Section 2. How Appeal Taken. - The appeal to the Director shall be taken by filing an Appeal Memorandum with the Director, copy furnished the Auditor. Proof of service of a copy to the Auditor shall be attached to the Appeal Memorandum. Proof of payment of the filing fee prescribed under these Rules shall likewise be attached to the Appeal Memorandum.
x x x x
Section 4. When Appeal Taken. - An Appeal must be filed within six (6) months after receipt of the decision appealed from.
17 Rule VII, Secs. 1, 2 and 3 provide:
Section 1. Who May Appeal and Where to Appeal. - The party aggrieved by a decision of the Director or the ASB may appeal to the Commission Proper.
Section 2. How Appeal Taken. - Appeal shall be taken by filing a Petition For Review in five (5) legible copies, with the Commission Secretariat, a copy of which shall be served on the Director or the ASB who rendered the decision. Proof of service thereof shall be attached to the petition together with the proof of payment of the filing fee prescribed under these Rules.
Section 3. Period of Appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within the time remaining of the six (6) months period under Section 4, Rule V, taking into account the suspension of the running thereof under Section 5 of the same Rule in case of appeals from the Director's decision, or under Sections 9 and 10 of Rule VI in case of decision of the ASB.
18 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Primetown Property Group, Inc., 558 Phil. 182, 190 (2007).
19 Id. at 190-191.
20 G.R. No. 211225, January 10,2017 (Unsigned Resolution).
21 Osmeña v. Commission on Audit, 665 Phil. 116, 124 (2011).
22 Id. at 125.
23 Art. III, Sec. 5, RA 7875 (NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT OF 1995), as amended by RA 10606 (NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT OF 2013).
24 See Art. IV, Sec. 16, RA 7875, as amended by RA 10606.
25 G.R. No. 213453, November 29, 2016, 811 SCRA 238.
26 Id. at 273.
27 RA 6758, Sec. 12 provides:
SEC. 12. Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation. - All allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign service personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents only as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.
28 Philippine Health Insurance Corporation v. Commission on Audit, supra note 25, at 272-273.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
