G.R. No. 109023 | August 12, 1998 | RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, EDELWINA DE PARUNGAO, VENUS M.

POZON AND other similarly situated personnel of the LOCAL WATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA), petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND LEONARDO L. JAMORALIN in his capacity as COA-LWUA Corporate Auditor,respondents. | PURISIMA, J.: FACTS: Petitioners are employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). On July 1, 1989, Republic Act No. 6758 "An Act Prescribing A Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For Other Purposes", took effect. Section 12 of said law provides for the consolidation of allowances and additional compensation into standardized salary rates. Certain additional compensations, however, were exempted from consolidation. Prior to this, they were receiving honoraria as designated members of the LWUA Board Secretariat and the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee. To implement RA 6758, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No. 10), discontinuing without qualification effective November 1, 1989, all allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary. Pursuant to said Circular, respondent Leonardo Jamoralin, as corporate auditor, disallowed on post audit, the payment of honoraria to the herein petitioners. Petitioners appealed to the COA, questioning the validity and enforceability of DBM-CCC No. 10. They contend that the Circular is inconsistent with the provisions of Rep. Act 6758 (the law it is supposed to implement) and, therefore, void. And it is without force and effect because it was not published in the Official Gazette. COA upheld the validity and effectivity of DBM-CCC No. 10. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General supported the petitioners, saying that Sec. 5.6 of DBM-CCC No. 10 is a nullity for being inconsistent with and repugnant to the very law it is intended to implement. The DBM Secretary asserted that the honoraria in question are considered included in the basic salary, for the reason that they are not listed as exceptions under Sec. 12 of Rep. Act 6758. ISSUE: Whether or not DBM-CCC No. 10 has legal force or effect despite its lack of publication in the Official Gazette RULING: No. Following the doctrine enunciated in Tanada v. Tuvera (146 SCRA 446), publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines is required since DBM-CCC No. 10 is in the nature of an administrative circular the purpose of which is to enforce or implement an existing law. Stated differently, to be effective and enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must go through the requisite publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. It is clear that DBM-CCC No. 10 is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. Before the said circular under attack may be permitted to substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees concerned should be apprised and alerted by the publication of subject circular in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines to the end that they be given amplest opportunity to voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate their stance on the matter. This approach is more in keeping with democratic precepts and rudiments of fairness and transparency. The ineffectiveness of the Circular makes resolution of the other issues at bar unnecessary. Petition is granted.