The Supreme Court en banc has affirmed a Commission on Audit 2010 ruling directing the Sugar Regulatory Administration to pay the 25 percent balance of the incentive and terminal leave benefits of its 16 former employees.

The SC, in its December 4 decision, also dismissed the SRA petition for certiorari versus the COA’s 2010 ruling.

Private respondents Encarnacion Tormon, Edgardo Alisaje, Lourdes Doble, Teresita Lim, Edmundo Jornadal, Jimmy Villanueva, Deanna Jance, Henry Doble, Reynaldo Luzana, Medelyn Toquillo, Severino Orlido, Rhoderick Alipoon, Jonathan Cordero, Danilo Biscocho, Bello Lucasan and Lubert Tive were former employees of the Philippine Sugar Institute (PHILSUGIN) and the Sugar Quota Administration (SQA).

On February 2, 1974, Presidential Decree No. 388 was issued creating the Philippine Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM). Under the decree, PHILSUGIN and SQA were abolished with the organization of PHILSUCOM, and the personnel of the abolished agencies who were not retained, were entitled to retirement/gratuity and incentive benefits, the SC noted.

In September 1977, with the abolition of PHILSUGIN and SQA the respondents were separated from the service, and paid their retirement/gratuity and incentive benefits. But in the same year, the respondents were reinstated by PHILSUCOM, subject to the condition that they refund in full the retirement/gratuity and incentive benefits they received from PHILSUGIN or SQA, the SC noted.

On May 28, 1986, Executive Order No. 18, series of 1986 was issued wherein the Sugar Regulatory Administration replaced PHILSUCOM. PHILSUCOM's assets and records were all transferred to petitioner SRA that also retained some of the former's personnel, which included the respondents, the SC noted.

On July 29, 2004, E.O. No. 339, mandating the Rationalization of the Operations and Organization of the SRA, was issued which reduced its personnel with the payment of retirement gratuity and incentives for those who opted to retire from the service.

Among those separated from the service were the respondents, the SC said.

Under its Rationalization Program, SRA computed its employees' incentives and terminal leave benefits based on their creditable years of service.

However, in the course of the implementation of its rationalization plan, the SRA said it found out that there was no showing that the respondents had refunded the gratuity benefits they received from PHILSUGIN or SQA. So the SRA considered the respondents' length of service as having been interrupted, and commenced only at the time they were reemployed by PHILSUCOM in 1977.

SRA then recomputed the respondents' retirement and incentive benefits and paid only the 75 percent equivalent of the originally-computed benefits and withheld the remaining 25 percent in view of the latter's inability to prove the refund, the SC said.

The respondents requested SRA to compute their incentive benefits based on their length of service, to include their years with PHILSUGIN or SQA, taking into consideration their refund of gratuity benefits to PHILSUCOM at the time of their re-employment in 1977, the SC added.

Considering that private respondents had introduced evidence that they had refunded their retirement and incentive benefits through salary deduction, the burden of going forward with the evidence - as distinct from the general burden of proof - shifts to the petitioner, SRA, that should provide evidence to show non-payment, the SC said.

However, the payroll to establish whether or not deductions had been made from the salaries of the respondents were in the SRA’s custody, and it failed to present the same due to the considerable lapse of time, the SC noted.

“All told, we find no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the COA in rendering its assailed decision,” the SC ruled in dismissing the SRA petition for certiorari.*CPG

back to top