This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-03-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| While not explicitly stated, the CSC's rule-making power is subsumed under its designation as the government's "central personnel agency" in Section 3, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution. The original draft of Section 3 empowered the CSC to "promulgate and enforce policies on personnel actions, classify positions, prescribe conditions of employment except as to compensation and other monetary benefits which shall be provided by law." This, however, was deleted during the constitutional commission's deliberations because it was redundant to the CSC's nature as an administrative agency:[27] | |||||
|
2010-01-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Section 3 is deemed to include the power to "promulgate and enforce policies on personnel actions."[17] | |||||
|
2009-02-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Section 9 specifies that Board members shall receive a per diem for every board meeting; limits the amount of per diem to not more than P5,000; and limits the total amount of per diem for one month to not more than four meetings. In Magno v. Commission on Audit,[16] Cabili v. Civil Service Commission,[17] De Jesus v. Civil Service Commission,[18] Molen, Jr. v. Commission on Audit,[19] and Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit,[20] the Court held that the specification of compensation and limitation of the amount of compensation in a statute indicate that Board members are entitled only to the per diem authorized by law and no other. In Baybay Water District, the Court held that:By specifying the compensation which a director is entitled to receive and by limiting the amount he/she is allowed to receive in a month, x x x the law quite clearly indicates that directors x x x are authorized to receive only the per diem authorized by law and no other compensation or allowance in whatever form.[21] | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| As a start, we affirm the CSC's jurisdiction in promulgating policies on compensation matters of water district personnel. We held in De Jesus v. CSC,[14] viz: The present case involves the acts of LWUA officials who are concurrently designated as members of the boards of directors of water districts. This Court has consistently ruled that water districts are government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, since they have been created pursuant to PD 198. Hence, they are under the jurisdiction of the CSC.[15] | |||||
|
2006-06-22 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Section 3 is deemed to include the power to "promulgate and enforce policies on personnel actions. It must be pointed out that the present controversy originated from an administrative case filed with the CSC for violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713). Necessarily, it was incumbent on the CSC to construe, in relation to that case pending before it, the provisions of PD 198. Settled is the rule that when a law confers jurisdiction, all the incidental powers necessary for its effective[16] exercise are included in the conferment. On the issue of compensation and other monetary benefits, we rule that all allowances and benefits, other than per diems, are prohibited to directors of water districts.[17] The compensation of directors of water districts is governed by Section 13 of P.D. No. 198, as amended, which reads: Sec. 13. Compensation. - Each director shall receive a per diem, to be determined by the board, for each meeting of the board actually attended by him, but no director shall receive per diems in any given month in excess of the equivalent of the total per diems of four meetings in any given month. No director shall receive other compensation for services to the district. | |||||