FACTS:

On January 25, 1993, the Secretary of Health wrote the Vice President and Medical Director of the GSIS, that the Medical Services Group (MSG) personnel of the GSIS were public health workers under the "Magna Carta for Public Health Workers" (RA No. 7305). On January 5, 1996, the former granted the request for payment of hazard pay, subsistence and laundry allowances of five departments of the GSIS anchored on the aforementioned law. Pursuant to such grant, the GSIS Board of Trustees issued a resolution granting such benefits. Subsequently, the request of the remaining units of the Social Insurance Group (SIG) for hazard pay benefits was granted.

The GSIS Resident Auditor disallowed the payment of such allowances based on a letter from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) stating that employees belonging to the SIG are not considered "health workers" and are therefore not entitled to receive hazard pay, the suspension of payment of hazard pay under R.A. No. 7305 pursuant to Administrative Order No. 170 and DBM Circular letter dated December 15, 1997.

COA denied the appeal and motion for reconsideration and accordingly affirmed the disallowance.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the SIG personnel are public health workers as defined by, or for purposes of, R.A. No. 7305.

RULING:

The COA decision and resolution are affirmed.

The functions of the SIG personnel are not principally related to health. The SIG personnel perform tasks for the processing of GSIS members’ claims for life insurance, retirement, disability and survivorship benefits. These functions are not similar to those of persons working in health-related establishments. Undoubtedly, the SIG personnel cannot be considered public health workers under R.A. No. 7305. They are therefore, not entitled to hazard pay.

To be included within the coverage of RA 7305, a government employee must be principally tasked to render health or health-related services. An employee performing functions not directly connected with the delivery of health services is not a public health worker within the contemplation of the law. A mere incidental or slight connection between the employee’s work and the delivery of health or health-related services is not sufficient to make a government employee a public health worker within the meaning of the aforementioned law. The employee must be principally engaged in the delivery of health or health-related services to be deemed a public health worker.

Furthermore, the nature of the working conditions of the SIG personnel does not justify their entitlement to hazard pay under Section 21 of R.A. No. 7305. Even if their work were primarily health-related, they do not stay in contaminated, strife-torn or isolated areas, and the risks brought about their work environment to their health are not so grave as to warrant their entitlement to such benefit.

Notwithstanding the affirmance of the disallowance, the SIG personnel who previously received hazard pay under R.A. No. 7305 need not refund such benefits applying the rulings of the Court in De Jesus v. COA and Blaquera v. Alcala.