R E S O L U T I O N

Records show that the request of Ms. Zorayda Amelia C. Alonzo, Chief Executive Officer, Home Development Mutual Fund, for the lifting of the disallowance of the payment of Productivity Incentive Bonus pursuant to the "Productivity Incentive Act of 1990" (R.A. No. 6971), in the total amount of P5,136,710.91, was denied by this Commission under COA Decision No. 98-245 dated June 16, 1998, principally because the grant of the incentive bonus is contrary to the supplemental rules implementing R.A. No. 6971. Said rules exclude from the coverage of R.A. No. 6971, government owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) which are created, maintained or acquired in pursuance of a policy of the state, enumerated in the constitution or by law, and those whose officers and employees are covered by the Civil Service Law. Hence, the instant motion for reconsideration.

Essentially, Ms, Alonzo invoked the following justifications in support of her request for consideration, to wit:

In a supplemental motion dated November 12, 1998, Ms Alonzo also claimed that subject disallowance has ceased to have any legal basis because in the case of De Jesus et al., vs. COA (GR No. 109023, August 12, 1998), the Supreme court has already declared Corporate Compensation Circular (CCC) No. 10 of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) ineffective and, therefore, the disallowance should be lifted.

After a careful re-evaluation, this Commission finds no cogent reason to reverse or modify its stand on the matter. The issue on validity of the supplemental rule in question is a question of law, therefore, not for this Commission to decide. Moreover, "(i)t is an elementary rule in administrative law that regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force and effect of law and are entitled to great respect. They have in their favor and effect of law and are entitled to great respect. They have in their favor the presumption of legality" (Gonzales vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 183 SCRA 520). Prior to the declaration of their nullity by the judiciary, the supplemental rules in question enjoy the presumption of validity and have to be respected and complied with.

Further, this issue has also been resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Association of Dedicated Employees of the Philippine Tourism Authority (ADEPT) vs. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 119597, September 11, 1998) wherein it declared that the Supplementary Rules Implementing Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6971 issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment and Secretary of Finance are in accord with the intendment and provisions of R.A. 6971.

Anent the argument that the opinion of the Secretary of Justice on the matter is not controlling, suffice it to say that in aid of its audit function, this Commission relies at times upon the opinions and suggestions of other government agencies.

The third and fourth grounds upon which Ms. Alonzo predicates her present motion have already been passed upon and considered by this Commission when it rendered the assailed COA Decision No. 98-245.

The fact that the Supreme Court has declared CCC No. 10 ineffective has no bearing in this case. The assertion of Ms. Alonzo that the issuance of CCC No. 10 was the reason for the disallowance is misleading. The productivity incentive bonus was disallowed not because of the issuance of CCC No. 10 but because it is contrary to the Supplemental Rules Implementing R.A. No. 6971.

Wherefore, premises considered, it is regretted that the present motion for reconsideration has to be, as it is hereby, denied.

(Sgd.) CELSO D. GAÑGAN
Chairman