8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

0U??f:;\E~ COURT CF T;-~t ~i.;1:. !e;:-·:~✓ E:3

P; .·;:;~: ::: !!\~-,:; .. \:, _.~1l> er:::;;_·(:
]
, ,,.-·=L;. ;~~~j[rn \ \ · ,' /I I, i J'; -,,-,~ -·,c·•J'J, ;I,' /i//
'-~~, "J '-~TI ,_J _L _••_• •, "i -1_,j,,, , sv 1-Y.{
Tl;vlE -~- ___ .,0~13""_____ _ -_ ~
l\.epublit of tbe ~bilippines
~upreme QCourt
;ffmanila
EN BANC
PHILIPPINE HEALTH G.R. No. 222710
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Petitioner, Present:
BERSAMIN, C.J.,
CARPIO,
PERALTA,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
JARDELEZA,
- versus - CAGUIOA,
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL
G. AGUINALDO, DIRECTOR
JOSEPH B. ANA CAY AND
REYES, JR., A.B.,
GESMUNDO,
REYES, JR., J.C.,
HERNANDO,*
CARANDANG,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
INTING, and
ZALAMEDA, JJ.
SUPERVISING AUDITOR Promulgated:
ELENA L. AGUSTIN,
Respondents. September 10,
x-----------------------------------
RESOLUTION
GESMUNDO, J.:
This pertains to the Motions for Reconsideration 1 seeking to reverse
and set aside the July 24, 2018 Decision2 of the Court, which
dismissed the
• On Official Business.
1 Rollo, pp. 471-494 and 443-462.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

2 Id. at 406-427.
(K4"
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 222710
petition filed by Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
(Phi/Health). The
petition sought to annul and set aside the April 1, 2015 Decision No.
2015-
0943 and November 9, 2015 Resolution4 of the Commission on Audit
(COA).
The COA affirmed the July 23, 2012 Notice of Disallowance (ND) No.
H.O.
12-005 (11) on the payment of longevity pay in the amount of
P5,575,294.70,
to the officers and employees of PhilHealth.
Antecedents
On March 25, 1992, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7305, otherwise known
as the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers, was signed into law.
Section
23 thereof granted longevity pay to a health worker, to wit:
Section 23. Longevity Pay. - A monthly longevity pay equivalent
to five percent (5%) of the monthly basic pay shall be paid to a
health
worker for every five (5) years of continuous, efficient and
meritorious
services rendered as certified by the chief of office concerned,
commencing with the service after the approval of this Act.
Pursuant to R.A. No. 7305, former Department of Health (DOH)
Secretary Alberto G. Romualdez, Jr., issued a Certification5 dated
February
20, 2000, declaring PhilHealth officers and employees as public
health
workers.
On April 26, 2001, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
(OGCC) issued Opinion No. 064, Series of 2001,6 stating that the
term
"health-related work" under Section 3 of R.A. No. 7305, includes not
only
the direct delivery or provision of health services but also the aspect
of
financing and regulation of health services. Thus, in its opinion, the
PhilHealth officers and employees were deemed engaged in health-
related
works for purposes of entitlement to longevity pay.
On August 1, 2011, former PhilHealth President and Chief Executive
Officer Dr. Rey B. Aquino issued Office Order No. 0053, Series of
2011,7
prescribing the guidelines on the grant of longevity pay,
incorporating it in

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

the basic salary of qualified PhilHealth employees for the year 2011
and
every year thereafter.
'Id. at 55-58.
4 Id. at 129.
5 Id. at 7.
6 Id. at 239-242.
7 ld.at7.
~
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 222710
On January 31, 2012, the PhilHealth Board passed and approved
Resolution No. 1584, Series of 2012, which confirmed the grant of
longevity
pay to its officers and employees for the period January to September
2011,
in the total amount of P5,575,294.70.8
On April 30, 2012, COA Supervising Auditor Elena C. Agustin
{Supervising Auditor) issued Audit Observation Memorandum 2012-
09 (11),
stating that the grant of longevity pay to PhilHealth officers and
employees
lacked legal basis, and thus, should be disallowed.
On May 18, 2012, PhilHealth asserted that its personnel were public
health workers, pursuant to the DOH Certification dated February
20, 2000,
and OGCC Opinion No. 064, Series of 2001 dated April 26, 2011, and
hence,
are entitled to longevity pay under R.A. No. 7305.
Notice of Dis allowance
On July 23, 2012, the COA Supervising Auditor issued ND No. H.O.
12-005 (11) disallowing the amount of P5,575,294.70 representing
the
payment for longevity pay. The officers who approved the
disbursement and
all payees were held liable under the said ND which stated that the
amount
was disallowed because it lacked legal basis.
PhilHealth received the ND on July 30, 2012. After 179 days from its
receipt or on January 25, 2013, it filed its appeal memorandum
before the
COA Corporate Government Sector (CGS).
The COA-CGS Ruling
In its March 13, 2014 Decision,9 the COA-CGS affirmed the ND. It
held that under Section 3 of R.A. No. 7305, a government health
worker
must be principally tasked to render health or health-related
services;
employees performing functions not directly related to health
services are
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

not public health workers. The COA-CGS underscored that

PhilHealth's
only responsibility is the payment of health services to covered
beneficiaries,
and that such payment cannot be equated to being a function
directly related
to health or to health-related services. Hence, it concluded that the
officers
and employees of PhilHealth were not entitled to longevity pay. The
fallo
reads:
8 Id. at 408.
9 Id. at 115-120.
~
RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 222710
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is
DENIED. Accordingly, ND No. H.O. 12-005 (11) dated July 23, 2012
is
hereby affirmed. 10
PhilHealth received the Decision of the COA-CGS on March 25,
2014.
It filed a motion for extension of time of thirty (30) days, from March
30,
2014 to April 30, 2014, to file its petition for review. On April 30,
2014,
PhilHealth filed said petition before the COA.
The COA Ruling
In its April 1, 2015 Decision, the COA denied the petition for review
for being filed out of time. It held that under Section 48 of
Presidential
Decree (PD) No. 1445, and Rule VII, Section 3 of the 2009 Revised
Rules
of Procedure of the COA, the reglementary period to appeal the
decision of
an auditor is six ( 6) months or 180 days from receipt of the decision.
The
COA found that PhilHealth filed its motion for extension of time to
file the
petition for review only after the lapse of the said period, hence, the
petition
was filed out of time. The dispositive portion states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for
review is hereby DISMISSED for having been filed out of time.
Accordingly, Commission on Audit Corporate Government Sector-6
Decision No. 2014-002 dated March 13, 2014, affirming Notice of
Disallowance No. H.O. 12-005 (11) dated July 23, 2012, on the
payment
of longevity pay under the Magna Carta for Public Health Workers
to the
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

officers and employees of Philippine Health Insurance Corporation

for the
period January to September 2011 in the total amount of
P5,575,294.70, is
final and executory. 11
Undeterred, PhilHealth filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 64
of
the Rules of Court before the Court.
The Court's Decision
In its July 24, 2018 Decision, the Court denied the petition for
certiorari filed by PhilHealth. It held that the petition was filed out
of time
because it was filed beyond the six (6)-month period to appeal an ND.
The
Court emphasized that PhilHealth received ND No. H.O. 12-005 (11)
on
July 30, 2012, and that after 179 days, it filed its appeal
memorandum before
the COA-CGS. Thus, when PhilHealth received the COA-CGS
Decision on
March 25, 2014, it only had one ( l) day to file its petition before the
COA,
10 Id. at 120.
11 Id. at 57-58.
ptr
RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 222710
or until March 26, 2014. As the petition was filed on April 30, 2014,
it was
filed out of time.
Nevertheless, even on the substantive issues, the Court found that
the
petition lacks merit. It held that to be included within the coverage
of R.A.
No. 7305 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), "an
employee
must be principally tasked to render health or health-related
services, such as
in hospitals, sanitaria, health infirmaries, health centers, clinical
laboratories
and facilities and other similar activities which involved health
services to
the public; medical professionals, allied health professionals,
administrative
and support personnel in the aforementioned agencies or offices;
employees
of the health-related establishments, that is, facilities or units
engaged in the
delivery of health services, although the agencies to which such
facilities or
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

units are attached are not primarily involved in health or health-

related
services. Otherwise stated, an employee performing functions not
primarily
connected with the delivery of health services to the public is not a
public
health worker within the contemplation of the law." 12
The Court underscored that PhilHealth personnel's functions are not
principally related to health service because their service pertains to
the
effective administration of the National Health Insurance Program,
or
facilitating the availability of funds of health services to its covered
employees. Stated differently, PhilHealth's function is to help its
members
pay for health care services; unlike that of workers or employees of
hospitals,
clinics, health centers and units, medical service institutions, clinical
laboratories, treatment and rehabilitation centers, health-related
establishments of government corporations, and the specific health
service
section, division, bureau or unit of a government agency, who are
actually
engaged in health work services. Thus, as PhilHealth's employees
are not
considered health workers, they are not entitled to longevity pay
under R.A.
No. 7305.
Further, the Court ruled that PhilHealth cannot claim good faith to
escape liability under ND No. H.O. 12-005 (11) dated July 23, 2012,
because it had already attained finality. Thus, all PhilHealth
personnel must
return the received longevity pay.
Hence, these motions for reconsideration raising the following issues:
I
PHILHEALTH PERSONNEL ARE PUBLIC HEALTH WORKERS
AS
DEFINED AND DETERMINED UNDER [R.A. No.] 7305 AND ITS
IRR.
12 Id. at416-417.
fl'\
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 222710
II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT PHILHEAL TH PERSONNEL
ARE
NOT PUBLIC HEAL TH WORKERS, THEY SHOULD NOT BE
MADE
TO REFUND THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED IN AUDIT
CONSIDERING THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT FOUND THAT
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

THEY RECEIVED THE BENEFIT IN GOOD FAITH. 13

In its Motion for Reconsideration, 14 PhilHealth argues that the
exceptions to the doctrine of finality of judgment must be applied in
the
interest of substantive justice and for the protection of labor's right
to fair
and reasonable compensation; that its personnel are health workers
because
it is attached to the DOH, which has an explicit mandate to be
involved in
both the provision and regulation of health services; and that, since
it is
attached to an agency which is mandated to provide, finance or
regulate
health services, PhilHealth personnel should be considered health
workers.
In its Motion for Reconsideration, 15 the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel (OGCC) reiterates its argument that PhilHealth
personnel
are covered by the definition of a public health worker under No. 1,
Rule III
of the Revised IRR of R.A. No. 730 because they are attached to an
agency,
DOH, which provides financing or regulation of health services; that
PhilHealth is not similarly situated with the Social Security System
(SSS),
Government Service Insurance System (GSJS), and Philippine
Charity
Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), because these are not attached agencies
of the
DOH and they do not primarily provide for the financing and
regulation of
health services; and that PhilHealth's mandate is not limited to
simply
paying the medical bills of their beneficiaries, rather, they also set
the
standards, rules, and regulations necessary to ensure quality of care,
appropriate utilization of services, fund viability, and member
satisfaction;
and that PhilHealth personnel received the longevity pay in good
faith, and
thus, are not liable to return the same.
In its Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, 16 PhilHealth
highlights that R.A. No. 11223, or the Universal Health Care Act,
was
signed by the President into law on February 20, 2019. Section 15
thereof
states that all PhilHealth personnel shall be classified as public
health
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

workers in accordance with the pertinent provisions under R.A. No.

7305.
Thus, PhilHealth concluded that R.A. No. 11223 confirmed its
personnel as
health workers entitled to longevity pay.
D Id. at 472.
14 Id. at 443-462.
15 Id. at 471-494.
16 Id. at 812-820.
p!/t
RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 222710
In its Consolidated Comment, 17 the COA argues that PhilHealth
personnel are not public health workers because their functions do
not
principally render health or health-related services; that the
personnel of an
office should not be considered as public health officers merely
because they
are attached to the DOH; otherwise, all personnel of the agencies
attached to
the DOH, such as the Commission on Population (POPCOM),
National
Nutrition Council (NNC), Philippine Institute for Traditional
Alternative
Health Care (PITAHC), and the Philippine National AIDS Council
(PNAC),
even if not directly providing health services, would receive the
benefits of a
public health worker; and that PhilHealth personnel cannot claim
good faith
to escape liability because the ND is already final and executory due
to the
belated filing of PhilHealth's appeal.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds the motions for reconsideration meritorious.
Relaxation of the procedural rules
As a general rule, the perfection of an appeal in the manner and
within
the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also
jurisdictional,
and the failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the
court final
and executory. As such, it has been held that the availability of an
appeal is
fatal to a special civil action for certiorari, for the same is not a
substitute
for a lost appeal. This is in line with the doctrine of finality of
judgment or

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

immutability of judgment under which a decision that has acquired

finality
becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified
in any
respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of
fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or
by the
Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this principle must
immediately be struck down.18
In this case, it was established that PhilHealth filed its petition for
review before the COA beyond the reglementary period, hence, the
subject
ND is deemed final and executory, to wit:
Based on the records, PhilHealth received the ND No. H.O. 12-005
(11) on July 30, 2012, and after 179 days from receipt thereof or on
January 25, 2013, PhilHealth filed its appeal memorandum before
the
COA Corporate Government Sector. The COA Corporate
Government
Sector upheld the ND No. H.O. 12-005 (11) and the same was
received by
PhilHealth on March 25, 2014. Hence, by that time, it only had a
period of
17 Id. at 862-904.
18 Or/ina v. Ventura, G.R. No. 227033, December 3, 2018.
pfl~
RESOLUTION 8 G.R. No. 222710
one (1) day, or until March 26, 2014, to file its petition for review
before
the CACP.
However, on March 31, 2014, after the lapse of five (5) days from
March 26, 2014, PhilHealth filed a motion for extension of time of
thirty
(30) days, from March 30, 2014 to April 30, 2014 to file its petition
for
review. Thereafter, on April 30, 2014 or after the lapse of 215 days
after
the Resident Auditor issued the ND, PhilHealth filed its petition
before the
CACP.
It is clear that PhilHealth filed its petition beyond the reglementary
period to file an appeal which is within six (6) months or 180 days
after
the Resident Auditor issued a ND. Thus, the Decision No. 2014-002
dated
March 13, 2014 of COA Corporate Government Sector which upheld
the

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

ND No. H.O. 12-005 (11) dated July 23, 2012 became final and
executory
pursuant to Section 51 of the Government Auditing Code of the
Ph1·1 ·1 pp.m es. 19
But like any other rule, the doctrine of immutability of judgment has
exceptions, namely: ( 1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-
called
nunc pro tune entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void
judgments; and ( 4) whenever circumstances transpire after
the finality of
the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
Similarly,
while it is doctrinally entrenched that certiorari is not a substitute
for a lost
appeal, the Court has allowed the resort to a petition for certiorari
despite
the existence of or prior availability of an appeal, such as: (1) where
the
appeal does not constitute a speedy and adequate remedy; (2) where
the
orders were also issued either in excess of or without jurisdiction; (3)
for
certain special considerations, as public welfare or public policy; ( 4)
where
in criminal actions, the court rejects rebuttal evidence for the
prosecution as,
in case of acquittal, there could be no remedy; (5) where the order is
a patent
nullity; and ( 6) where the decision in the certiorari case will avoid
future
litigations. 20
The Court finds that this case falls under the exception of the
doctrine
of immutability of judgment because there is a particular
circumstance that
transpired after the finality of ND No. H.O. 12-005 (11), specifically,
the
enactment of R.A. No. 11223 on February 20, 2019. Further, the
issue on
whether PhilHealth personnel are health workers must be revisited
for
special considerations regarding the classification of employees in
the public
health care sector. Thus, ND No. H.O. 12-005 (11) may still be
scrutinized
by the Court on its merits.
19 Rollo, pp. 413-4 I 4.
"
0 Orlina v. Ventura, supra note 18.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

Afli
RESOLUTION
RA. No. 11223 is a remedial
legislation
9 G.R. No. 222710
One of the objectives of R.A. No. 11223, or the Universal Health Care
Act, is to ensure that all Filipinos are guaranteed equitable access to
quality
and affordable health care goods and services, and protected against
financial risk.21 In line with this objective, the law declares that
every
Filipino citizen shall be automatically included in the National
Health
Insurance Program. 22
Notably, R.A. No. 11223 provides for a clear and unequivocal
declaration regarding the classification of all PhilHealth personnel,
to wit:
SECTION 15. PhilHealth Personnel as Public Health Workers.
- All PhilHealth personnel shall be classified as public health
workers
in accordance with the pertinent provisions under Republic Act No.
7305,
also known as the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers. (
emphasis
supplied)
Plainly, the law states that all personnel of the PhilHealth are public
health workers in accordance with R.A. No. 7305. This confirms that
PhilHealth personnel are covered by the definition of a public health
worker.
In other words, R.A. No. 11223 is a curative statute that remedies
the
shortcomings of R.A. No. 7305 with respect to the classification of
PhilHealth personnel as public health workers.
Curative statutes are intended to [ correct] defects, abridge
superfluities in existing laws and curb certain evils. "They are
intended to
enable persons to carry into effect that which they have designed and
intended, but has failed of expected legal consequence by reason of
some
statutory disability or irregularity in their own action. They make
valid that
which, before the enactment of the statute, was invalid."23
Curative statutes have long been considered valid in this
jurisdiction.
Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that would have been
invalid
under existing laws, as if existing laws have been complied with.
They are,
however, subject to exceptions. For one, they must not be against the
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

Constitution and for another, they cannot impair vested rights or the
obligation of contracts. 24 By their nature, curative statutes may be
given
21 R.A. No. 11223, Section 3(b).
22 R.A. No. 11223, Section 5.
23 Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. v. Hon. Dela Serna, 3 70 Phil. 872,
893 ( 1999).
24 Briad Agro Development Corp. v. Hon. Dela Serna, 256 Phil. 285,
294 (1989).
~
RESOLUTION 10 G.R. No. 222710
retroactive effect, unless it will impair vested rights. 25 A curative
statute has
a retrospective application to a pending proceeding.26
In Briad Agro Development Corp. v. Hon. Dela Cerna, 27 the issue
therein was whether the Secretary of Labor, through the Regional
Directors,
had concurrent jurisdiction with the Labor Arbiter regarding money
claims.
Initially, the Court ruled that they had concurrent jurisdiction based
on the
Labor Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 111. While the
motion for
reconsideration was pending, the Court was informed of the
enactment of
R.A. No. 6715, which further amended Article 217 of the Labor Code,
stating that only the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction over
money
claims.28 Accordingly, the Court granted the motion for
reconsideration and
held that R.A. No. 6715 is a curative legislation which finally settled
that the
Labor Arbiter had exclusive jurisdiction over money claims, not the
Secretary of Labor or the Regional Directors. Further, it was
declared therein
that R.A. No. 6715 is a curative legislation, which is applicable to
pending
cases.
Similarly, in Manuel L. Quezon University v. National Labor
Relations Commission,29 the employees therein received retirement
benefits
from the retirement plan created by the university. However, the
rates of said
retirement plan were lower than that provided by the recently
enacted R.A.
No. 7641.30 The Court ruled that the employees therein were
entitled to the
rates provided by R.A. No. 7641, which is a curative social legislation
and,
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

by nature, has a retroactive effect.

In this case, while the Court initially declared that PhilHealth
personnel were not public health workers in its July 24, 2018
Decision and
that ND No. H.O. 12-005 (11) was final and executory, the
subsequent
enactment of R.A. No. 11223, which transpired after the
promulgation of its
decision, convinces the Court to review its ruling. Thus, R.A. No.
11223 is a
25 Manuel L. Quezon University v. National labor Relations
Commission, 419 Phil. 776, 783 (2001 ).
26 See Garcia v. Judge Martinez, 179 Phil. 263, 265 ( 1979).
27 Supra note 24.
28 ARTICLE 217 . .Jurisdiction of labor Arbiters and the
Commission. - x x x
xxxx
(6) Except claims for employees compensation, social security,
medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of
persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (?
5,000.00), whether or not accompanied with
a claim for reinstatement.
xxxx
29 Supra note 25.
30
R.A. No. 7641 amended Article 287 of the Labor Code regarding the
retirement benefits of qualified
private sector employees.
/A'
RESOLUTION 11 G.R. No. 222710
curative legislation that benefits PhilHealth personnel and has
retrospective
application to pending proceedings.
Indeed, R.A. No. 11223, as a curative law, should be given
retrospective application to the pending proceeding because it
neither
violates the Constitution nor impairs vested rights. On the contrary,
R.A. No.
11223 further promotes the objective of R.A. No. 7305, which is to
promote
and improve the social and economic well-being of health workers,
their
living and working conditions and terms of employment. 31 As a
curative
statute, R.A. No. 11223 applies to the present case and to all pending
cases

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

involving the issue of whether PhilHealth personnel are public

health
workers under Section 3 of R.A. No. 7305. To reiterate, R.A. No.
11223
settles, once and for all, the matter that PhilHealth personnel are
public
health workers in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 7305.
Evidently, R.A. No. 11223 removes any legal impediment to the
treatment of PhilHealth personnel as public health workers and for
them to
receive all the corresponding benefits therewith, including longevity
pay.
Thus, ND H.O. 12-005 (11), disallowing the longevity pay of
PhilHealth
personnel, must be reversed and set aside. As PhilHealth personnel
are
considered public health workers, it is not necessary anymore to
discuss the
issue on good faith.
WHEREFORE, the Motions for Reconsideration are GRANTED.
The July 24, 2018 Decision of the Court is hereby REVERSED and
SET
ASIDE. The July 23, 2012 Notice of Disallowance No. H.O. 12-005
(11),
on the payment of longevity pay in the amount of PS,575,294.70, is
likewise
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
31 R.A. No. 7305, Section 2.
RESOLUTION 12
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
1Jl)W
ESTELA iviJ'PERLAS-BERNABE .-
Associate Justice
FRANC~A
Associate Justice
ANDRE~~YES, JR.
Asslc~J~ Justice
(On Official Business)
RAMON PAULL. HERNANDO
Associate Justice
AMY' ~-JAVIER
Associate Justice
G.R. No. 222710
S. CAGUIOA
~
£·/4/.,/
C.REt~JR.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 14/15
8/9/2021 Advanced Decisions September 2019

sociate Justice
r"
HENRI~TING
Associate Justice
RESOLUTION 13 G.R. No. 222710
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby
certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the
Court.
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
htl{ 0. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court En Banc
Supreme Court

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b33957abd8916ea000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/15