EN BANC

[G.R. No. 207145. July 28, 2015.]

GIL G. CAWAD, MARIO BENEDICT P. GALON, DOMINGO E. LUSAYA,

JEAN V. APOLINARES, MA. LUISA S. OREZCA, JULIO R. GARCIA,
NESTOR M. INTIA, RUBEN C. CALIWATAN, ADOLFO Q. ROSALES, MA.
LUISA NAVARRO, and the PHILIPPINE PUBLIC HEALTH
ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioners, vs. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, in his
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management
(DBM); ENRIQUE T. ONA, in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Health (DOH); and FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, in his
capacity as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission (CSC),
respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J : p

Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court filed by the officers and members of the Philippine Public Health
Association, Inc. (PPHAI) assailing the validity of Joint Circular No. 1 1 dated November
29, 2012 of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Department of
Health (DOH) as well as Item 6.5 of the Joint Circular 2 dated September 3, 2012 of the
DBM and the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On March 26, 1992, Republic Act (RA) No. 7305, otherwise known as The
Magna Carta of Public Health Workers was signed into law in order to promote the
social and economic well-being of health workers, their living and working conditions
and terms of employment, to develop their skills and capabilities to be better equipped
to deliver health projects and programs, and to encourage those with proper
qualifications and excellent abilities to join and remain in government service. 3
Accordingly, public health workers (PHWs) were granted the following allowances and
benefits, among others:
Section 20. Additional Compensation. — Notwithstanding Section 12 of
Republic Act No. 6758, public health workers shall receive the following
allowances: hazard allowance, subsistence allowance, longevity pay, laundry
allowance and remote assignment allowance.
Section 21. Hazard Allowance. — Public health workers in hospitals,
sanitaria, rural health units, main health centers, health infirmaries, barangay
health stations, clinics and other health-related establishments located in
difficult areas, strife-torn or embattled areas, distressed or isolated stations,
prisons camps, mental hospitals, radiation-exposed clinics, laboratories or
disease-infested areas or in areas declared under state of calamity or
emergency for the duration thereof which expose them to great danger,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 contagion, radiation, volcanic activity/eruption, occupational risks or perils to life
as determined by the Secretary of Health or the Head of the unit with the
approval of the Secretary of Health, shall be compensated hazard allowances
equivalent to at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the monthly basic salary of
health workers receiving salary grade 19 and below, and five percent (5%)
for health workers with salary grade 20 and above.
Section 22. Subsistence Allowance. — Public health workers who are
required to render service within the premises of hospitals, sanitaria, health
infirmaries, main health centers, rural health units and barangay health stations,
or clinics, and other health-related establishments in order to make their
services available at any and all times, shall be entitled to full subsistence
allowance of three (3) meals which may be computed in accordance with
prevailing circumstances as determined by the Secretary of Health in
consultation with the Management-Health Worker's Consultative Councils, as
established under Section 33 of this Act: Provided, That representation and
travel allowance shall be given to rural health physicians as enjoyed by
municipal agriculturists, municipal planning and development officers and
budget officers.
Section 23. Longevity Pay. — A monthly longevity pay equivalent to
five percent (5%) of the monthly basic pay shall be paid to a health workerfor
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. 4
Pursuant to Section 35 5 of the Magna Carta, the Secretary of Health
promulgated its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) in July 1992. Thereafter, in
November 1999, the DOH, in collaboration with various government agencies and
health workers' organizations, promulgated a Revised IRR consolidating all additional
and clarificatory rules issued by the former Secretaries of Health dating back from the
effectivity of the Magna Carta. The pertinent provisions of said Revised IRR provide:
6.3. Longevity Pay. — A monthly longevity pay equivalent to five
percent (5%) of the present monthly basic pay shall be paid to public health
workers for every five (5) years of continuous, efficient and meritorious
services rendered as certified by the Head of Agency/Local Chief Executives
commencing after the approval of the Act. (April 17, 1992)
xxx xxx xxx
7.1.1. Eligibility to Receive Hazard Pay. — All public health workers
covered under RA 7305 are eligible to receive hazard pay when the nature of
their work exposes them to high risk/low risk hazards for at least fifty
percent (50%) of their working hours as determined and approved by the
Secretary of Health or his authorized representatives.
xxx xxx xxx
7.2.1. Eligibility for Subsistence Allowance.
a. All public health workers covered under RA 7305 are
eligible to receive full subsistence allowance as long as they
render actual duty.
b. Public Health Workers shall be entitled to full
Subsistence Allowance of three (3) meals which may be
computed in accordance with prevailing circumstances as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 determined by the Secretary of Health in consultation with the
Management-Health Workers Consultative Council, as
established under Section 33 of the Act.
c. Those public health workers who are out of station shall
be entitled to per diems in place of Subsistence Allowance.
Subsistence Allowance may also be commuted.
xxx xxx xxx
7.2.3 Rates of Subsistence Allowance
a. Subsistence allowance shall be implemented at not less than
PhP50.00 per day or PhP1,500.00 per month as certified by head of agency.
xxx xxx xxx
d. Part-time public health workers/consultants are entitled to one-half
(1/2) of the prescribed rates received by full-time public health workers.6
On July 28, 2008, the Fourteenth Congress issued Joint Resolution No. 4,
entitled Joint Resolution Authorizing the President of the Philippines to Modify the
Compensation and Position Classification System of Civilian Personnel and the Base
Pay Schedule of Military and Uniformed Personnel in the Government, and for other
Purposes, approved by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on June 17, 2009,
which provided for certain amendments in the Magna Carta and its IRR.
On September 3, 2012, respondents DBM and CSC issued one of the two
assailed issuances, DBM-CSC Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012, to prescribe the
rules on the grant of Step Increments due to meritorious performance and Step
Increment due to length of service. 7 Specifically, it provided that "an official or
employee authorized to be granted Longevity Pay under an existing law is not eligible
for the grant of Step Increment due to length of service." 8
Shortly thereafter, on November 29, 2012, respondents DBM and DOH then
circulated the other assailed issuance, DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012,
the relevant provisions of which state:
7.0. Hazard Pay. — Hazard pay is an additional compensation for
performing hazardous duties and for enduring physical hardships in the course
of performance of duties.
As a general compensation policy, and in line with Section 21 of R.A.
No. 7305, Hazard Pay may be granted to PHWs only if the nature of the
duties and responsibilities of their positions, their actual services, and
location of work expose them to great danger, occupational risks, perils
of life, and physical hardships; and only during periods of actual
exposure to hazards and hardships.
xxx xxx xxx
8.3 The Subsistence Allowance shall be P50 for each day of actual full-
time service, or P25 for each day of actual part-time service.
xxx xxx xxx
9.0 Longevity Pay (LP)
9.1 Pursuant to Section 23 of R.A. No. 7305, a PHW may be granted LP
at 5% of his/her current monthly basic salary, in recognition of every 5 years of
continuous, efficient, and meritorious services rendered as PHW. The grant
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 thereof is based on the following criteria:
9.1.1 The PHW holds a position in the agency plantilla of regular
positions; and
9.1.2 He/She has rendered at least satisfactory performance and has not
been found guilty of any administrative or criminal case within all rating periods
covered by the 5-year period.
In a letter 9 dated January 23, 2013 addressed to respondents Secretary of
Budget and Management and Secretary of Health, petitioners expressed their
opposition to the Joint Circular cited above on the ground that the same diminishes the
benefits granted by the Magna Carta to PHWs.
Unsatisfied, petitioners, on May 30, 2013, filed the instant petition raising the
following issues:
I.
WHETHER RESPONDENTS ENRIQUE T. ONA AND FLORENCIO B.
ABAD ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND VIOLATED
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS WHEN THEY ISSUED DBM-DOH JOINT
CIRCULAR NO. 1, S. 2012 WHICH:
A) MADE THE PAYMENT OF HAZARD PAY DEPENDENT ON THE ACTUAL
DAYS OF EXPOSURE TO THE RISK INVOLVED;
B) ALLOWED PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE AT P50 FOR EACH
DAY OF ACTUAL FULL-TIME SERVICE OR P25 FOR EACH DAY OF
ACTUAL PART-TIME SERVICE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE
PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES AS DETERMINED BY THE
SECRETARY OF HEALTH IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
MANAGEMENT HEALTH WORKERS' CONSULTATIVE COUNCILS;
C) REQUIRED THAT LONGEVITY PAY BE GRANTED ONLY TO PHWs WHO
HOLD PLANTILLA AND REGULAR POSITIONS; AND
D) MADE THE JOINT CIRCULAR EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 2013, BARELY
THREE (3) DAYS AFTER IT WAS PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF
GENERAL CIRCULATION ON DECEMBER 29, 2012, IN VIOLATION OF
THE RULES ON PUBLICATION.
II.
WHETHER RESPONDENTS FRANCISCO T. DUQUE AND
FLORENCIO B. ABAD ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
WHEN THEY ISSUED DBM-CSC JOINT CIRCULAR NO. 1, S. 2012 DATED
SEPTEMBER 2, 2012 WHICH PROVIDED THAT AN OFFICIAL OR
EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO LONGEVITY PAY UNDER EXISTING LAW SHALL
NO LONGER BE GRANTED STEP INCREMENT DUE TO LENGTH OF
SERVICE.
III.
WHETHER RESPONDENTS' ISSUANCE OF DBM-DOH JOINT
CIRCULAR NO. 1, S. 2012 IS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING AN UNDUE
EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES WHEN
RESPONDENT ONA ALLOWED RESPONDENT ABAD TO SIGNIFICANTLY
SHARE THE POWER TO FORMULATE AND PREPARE THE NECESSARY
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MAGNA CARTA.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 IV.
WHETHER RESPONDENT ONA WAS REMISS IN IMPLEMENTING
THE MANDATE OF THE MAGNA CARTA WHEN HE DID NOT INCLUDE THE
MAGNA CARTA BENEFITS IN THE DEPARTMENT'S YEARLY BUDGET.
V.
WHETHER RESPONDENTS' ISSUANCE OF DBM-DOH JOINT
CIRCULAR NO. 1, S. 2012 IS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING AN UNDUE
EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER BY ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES WHEN
THE SAME WAS ISSUED SANS CONSULTATION WITH PROFESSIONAL
AND HEALTH WORKERS' ORGANZATIONS AND UNIONS.
Petitioners contend that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion when
they issued DBM-DOH Joint Circular No. 1, Series of 2012 and DBM-CSC Joint
Circular No. 1, Series of 2012 which prescribe certain requirements on the grant of
benefits that are not otherwise required by RA No. 7305. Specifically, petitioners assert
that the DBM-DOH Joint Circular grants the payment of Hazard Pay only if the nature of
the PHWs' duties expose them to danger when RA No. 7305 does not make any
qualification. They likewise claim that said circular unduly fixes Subsistence Allowance
at P50 for each day of full-time service and P25 for part-time service which are not in
accordance with prevailing circumstances determined by the Secretary of Health as
required by RA No. 7305. Moreover, petitioners fault respondents for the premature
effectivity of the DBM-DOH Joint Circular which they believe should have been on
January 29, 2012 and not on January 1, 2012. As to the grant of Longevity Pay,
petitioners posit that the same was wrongfully granted only to PHWs holding regular
plantilla positions. Petitioners likewise criticize the DBM-CSC Joint Circular insofar as it
withheld the Step Increment due to length of service from those who are already being
granted Longevity Pay. As a result, petitioners claim that the subject circulars are void
for being an undue exercise of legislative power by administrative bodies.
In their Comment, respondents, through the Solicitor General, refute petitioners'
allegations in stating that the assailed circulars were issued within the scope of their
authority, and are therefore valid and binding. They also assert the authority of Joint
Resolution No. 4, Series of 2009, approved by the President, in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. Moreover, respondents question the remedies of Certiorari and
Prohibition used by petitioners for the assailed circulars were done in the exercise of
their quasi-legislative, and not of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
The petition is partly meritorious.
At the outset, the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners is not
the appropriate remedy to assail the validity of respondents' circulars. Sections 1 and 2
of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provide:
RULE 65
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess
of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 2. Petition for Prohibition. — When the proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in
the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment
be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further
proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting
such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. 10
Thus, on the one hand, certiorari as a special civil action is available only if: (1) it
is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions; (2) the tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there
is no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
11

On the other hand, prohibition is available only if (1) it is directed against a

tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person exercising functions, judicial, quasi-
judicial, or ministerial; (2) the tribunal, corporation, board or person acted without or in
excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. 12 Based on the foregoing, this Court has
consistently reiterated that petitions for certiorari and prohibition may be invoked only
against tribunals, corporations, boards, officers, or persons exercising judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions, and not against their exercise of legislative or quasi-
legislative functions. 13
Judicial functions involve the power to determine what the law is and what the
legal rights of the parties are, and then undertaking to determine these questions and
adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. 14 Quasi-judicial functions apply to the actions
and discretion of public administrative officers or bodies required to investigate facts,
hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action, in
their exercise of discretion of a judicial nature. 15 Ministerial functions are those which
an officer or tribunal performs in the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed
manner and without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of the act done. 16
Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is
necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights under which
adverse claims are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a
tribunal, board, or officer clothed with authority to determine the law and adjudicate the
respective rights of the contending parties. 17
In this case, respondents did not act in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
capacity in their issuance of the assailed joint circulars. In issuing and implementing the
subject circulars, respondents were not called upon to adjudicate the rights of
contending parties to exercise, in any manner, discretion of a judicial nature. The
issuance and enforcement by the Secretaries of the DBM, CSC and DOH of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 questioned joint circulars were done in the exercise of their quasi-legislative and
administrative functions. It was in the nature of subordinate legislation, promulgated by
them in their exercise of delegated power. Quasi-legislative power is exercised by
administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules and regulations within the
confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of powers from the
separation of the branches of the government. 18
Based on the foregoing, certiorari and prohibition do not lie against herein
respondents' issuances. It is beyond the province of certiorari to declare the aforesaid
administrative issuances illegal because petitions for certiorari seek solely to correct
defects in jurisdiction, and not to correct just any error committed by a court, board, or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions unless such court, board, or officer
thereby acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. 19
It is likewise beyond the territory of a writ of prohibition since generally, the
purpose of the same is to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to
maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels. It affords relief against
usurpation of jurisdiction by an inferior court, or when, in the exercise of jurisdiction, the
inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed by the law, or where there is no
adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law. 20
Be that as it may, We proceed to discuss the substantive issues raised in the
petition in order to finally resolve the doubt over the Joint Circulars' validity. For proper
guidance, the pressing issue of whether or not the joint circulars regulating the salaries
and benefits relied upon by public health workers were tainted with grave abuse of
discretion rightly deserves its prompt resolution.
With respect to the infirmities of the DBM-DOH Joint Circular raised in the
petition, they cannot be said to have been issued with grave abuse of discretion for not
only are they reasonable, they were likewise issued well within the scope of authority
granted to the respondents. In fact, as may be gathered from prior issuances on the
matter, the circular did not make any substantial deviation therefrom, but actually
remained consistent with, and germane to, the purposes of the law.
First, the qualification imposed by the DBM-DOH Joint Circular granting the
payment of Hazard Pay only if the nature of PHWs' duties expose them to danger and
depending on whether the risk involved is high or low was merely derived from Section
7.1.1 of the Revised IRR of RA No. 7305, duly promulgated by the DOH in collaboration
with various government health agencies and health workers' organizations in
November 1999, to wit:
SECTION 7.1.1. Eligibility to Receive Hazard Pay. — All public health
workers covered under RA 7305 are eligible to receive hazard pay when the
nature of their work exposes them to high risk/low risk hazards for at
least fifty percent (50%) of their working hours as determined and approved
by the Secretary of Health or his authorized representatives. 21
Second, fixing the Subsistence Allowance at P50 for each day of fulltime service
and P25 for part-time service was also merely a reiteration of the limits prescribed by
the Revised IRR, validly issued by the Secretary of Health pursuant to Section 35 22 of
RA No. 7305, the pertinent portions of which states:
Section 7.2.3 Rates of Subsistence Allowance
a. Subsistence allowance shall be implemented at not less
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 than PhP50.00 per day or PhP1,500.00 per month as certified by
head of agency.
xxx xxx xxx
d. Part-time public health workers/consultants are
entitled to one-half (1/2) of the prescribed rates received by full-
time public health workers.
Third, the condition imposed by the DBM-DOH Joint Circular granting longevity
pay only to those PHWs holding regular plantilla positions merely implements the
qualification imposed by the Revised IRR which provides:
6.3. Longevity Pay. — A monthly longevity pay equivalent to five percent
(5%) of the present monthly basic pay shall be paid to public health workers
for every five (5) years of continuous, efficient and meritorious services
rendered as certified by the Head of Agency/Local Chief Executives
commencing after the approval of the Act. (April 17, 1992)
6.3.1. Criteria for Efficient and Meritorious Service. A Public Worker shall
have:
a. At least a satisfactory performance rating within the
rating period.
b. Not been found guilty of any administrative or criminal
case within the rating period.
As can be gleaned from the aforequoted provision, petitioners failed to show any
real inconsistency in granting longevity pay to PHWs holding regular plantilla positions.
Not only are they based on the same premise, but the intent of longevity pay, which is
paid to workers for every five (5) years of continuous, efficient and meritorious services,
necessarily coincides with that of regularization. Thus, the assailed circular cannot be
invalidated for its issuance is consistent with, and germane to, the purposes of the law.
Anent petitioners' contention that the DBM-DOH Joint Circular is null and void for
its failure to comply with Section 35 23 of RA No. 7305 providing that its implementing
rules shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in a newspaper of general
circulation, as well as its failure to file a copy of the same with the University of the
Philippines Law Center-Office of the National Administrative Register (UP Law Center-
ONAR), jurisprudence as well as the circumstances of this case dictate otherwise.
Indeed, publication, as a basic postulate of procedural due process, is required
by law in order for administrative rules and regulations to be effective. 24 There are,
however, several exceptions, one of which are interpretative regulations which "need
nothing further than their bare issuance for they give no real consequence more than
what the law itself has already prescribed." 25 These regulations need not be published
for they add nothing to the law and do not affect substantial rights of any person. 26
Thus, in Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, et al. v. Energy
Regulatory Commission (ERC), 27 wherein several orders issued by the ERC were
sought to be invalidated for lack of publication and non-submission of copies thereof to
the UP Law Center-ONAR, it has been held that since they merely interpret RA No.
7832 and its IRR, particularly on the computation of the cost of purchased power,
without modifying, amending or supplanting the same, they cannot be rendered
ineffective, to wit:
When the policy guidelines of the ERC directed the exclusion of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 discounts extended by power suppliers in the computation of the cost of
purchased power, the guidelines merely affirmed the plain and
unambiguous meaning of "cost" in Section 5, Rule IX of the IRR of R.A.
No. 7832. "Cost" is an item of outlay, and must therefore exclude discounts
since these are "not amounts paid or charged for the sale of electricity, but are
reductions in rates.
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, the policy guidelines of the ERC on the treatment of
discounts extended by power suppliers "give no real consequence more
than what the law itself has already prescribed." Publication is not
necessary for the effectivity of the policy guidelines.
As interpretative regulations, the policy guidelines of the ERC on
the treatment of discounts extended by power suppliers are also not
required to be filed with the U.P. Law Center in order to be effective.
Section 4, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987 requires
every rule adopted by an agency to be filed with the U.P. Law Center to be
effective. However, in Board of Trustees of the Government Service Insurance
System v. Velasco, this Court pronounced that "not all rules and regulations
adopted by every government agency are to be filed with the UP Law
Center." Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature are
not required to be filed with the U.P. Law Center. Paragraph 9 (a) of the
Guidelines for Receiving and Publication of Rules and Regulations Filed with
the U.P. Law Center states:
9. Rules and Regulations which need not be filed with the
U.P. Law Center, shall, among others, include but not be limited
to, the following:
a. Those which are interpretative regulations and
those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the
personnel of the Administrative agency and not the public.
xxx xxx xxx
Furthermore, the policy guidelines of the ERC did not create a new
obligation and impose a new duty, nor did it attach a new disability. As
previously discussed, the policy guidelines merely interpret R.A. No. 7832
and its IRR, particularly on the computation of the cost of purchased
power. The policy guidelines did not modify, amend or supplant the IRR.
Similarly, in Republic v. Drugmaker's Laboratories, Inc. , 28 the validity of circulars
issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was upheld in spite of the non-
compliance with the publication, prior hearing, and consultation requirements for they
merely implemented the provisions of Administrative Order No. 67, entitled "Revised
Rules and Regulations on Registration of Pharmaceutical Products" issued by the DOH,
in the following wise:
A careful scrutiny of the foregoing issuances would reveal that AO
67, s. 1989 is actually the rule that originally introduced the BA/BE testing
requirement as a component of applications for the issuance of CPRs
covering certain pharmaceutical products. As such, it is considered an
administrative regulation — a legislative rule to be exact — issued by the
Secretary of Health in consonance with the express authority granted to him by
RA 3720 to implement the statutory mandate that all drugs and devices should
first be registered with the FDA prior to their manufacture and sale. Considering
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 that neither party contested the validity of its issuance, the Court deems that
AO 67, s. 1989 complied with the requirements of prior hearing, notice, and
publication pursuant to the presumption of regularity accorded to the
government in the exercise of its official duties. 42
On the other hand, Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 cannot be
considered as administrative regulations because they do not: (a)
implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof; (b)
interpret, clarify, or explain existing statutory regulations under which the
FDA operates; and/or (c) ascertain the existence of certain facts or things
upon which the enforcement of RA 3720 depends. In fact, the only
purpose of these circulars is for the FDA to administer and supervise the
implementation of the provisions of AO 67, s. 1989, including those
covering the BA/BE testing requirement, consistent with and pursuant to
RA 3720. 43 Therefore, the FDA has sufficient authority to issue the said
circulars and since they would not affect the substantive rights of the
parties that they seek to govern — as they are not, strictly speaking,
administrative regulations in the first place — no prior hearing,
consultation, and publication are needed for their validity.
In this case, the DBM-DOH Joint Circular in question gives no real consequence
more than what the law itself had already prescribed. As previously discussed, the
qualification of actual exposure to danger for the PHW's entitlement to hazard pay, the
rates of P50 and P25 subsistence allowance, and the entitlement to longevity pay on
the basis of PHW's status in the plantilla of regular positions were already prescribed
and authorized by pre-existing law. There is really no new obligation or duty imposed by
the subject circular for it merely reiterated those embodied in RA No. 7305 and its
Revised IRR. The Joint Circular did not modify, amend nor supplant the Revised IRR,
the validity of which is undisputed. Consequently, whether it was duly published and
filed with the UP Law Center-ONAR is necessarily immaterial to its validity because in
view of the pronouncements above, interpretative regulations, such as the DBM-DOH
circular herein, need not be published nor filed with the UP Law Center-ONAR in order
to be effective. Neither is prior hearing or consultation mandatory.
Nevertheless, it bears stressing that in spite of the immateriality of the publication
requirement in this case, and even assuming the necessity of the same, its basic
objective in informing the public of the contents of the law was sufficiently accomplished
when the DBM-DOH Joint Circular was published in The Philippine Star, a newspaper
of general circulation, on December 29, 2012. 29
As to petitioners' allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent
DOH Secretary in failing to include the Magna Carta benefits in his department's yearly
budget, the same is belied by the fact that petitioners themselves specifically provided
in their petition an account of the amounts allocated for the same in the years 2012 and
2013. 30
Based on the foregoing, it must be recalled that administrative regulations, such
as the DBM-DOH Joint Circular herein, enacted by administrative agencies to
implement and interpret the law they are entrusted to enforce are entitled to great
respect. 31 They partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have
been written in the statute itself. As such, administrative regulations have the force and
effect of law and enjoy the presumption of legality. Unless and until they are overcome
by sufficient evidence showing that they exceeded the bounds of the law, 32 their
validity and legality must be upheld.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 Thus, notwithstanding the contention that the Joint Resolution No. 4 promulgated
by Congress cannot be a proper source of delegated power, the subject Circular was
nevertheless issued well within the scope of authority granted to the respondents. The
issue in this case is not whether the Joint Resolution No. 4 can become law and,
consequently, authorize the issuance of the regulation in question, but whether the
circular can be struck down as invalid for being tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Regardless, therefore, of the validity or invalidity of Joint Resolution No. 4, the DBM-
DOH Joint Circular assailed herein cannot be said to have been arbitrarily or
capriciously issued for being consistent with prior issuances duly promulgated pursuant
to valid and binding law.
Distinction must be made, however, with respect to the DBM-CSC Joint Circular,
the contested provision of which states:
6.5 An official or employee authorized to be granted Longevity Pay
under an existing law is not eligible for the grant of Step Increment Due to
Length of Service.
A review of RA No. 7305 and its Revised IRR reveals that the law does not
similarly impose such condition on the grant of longevity pay to PHWs in the
government service. As such, the DBM-CSC Joint Circular effectively created a new
imposition which was not otherwise stipulated in the law it sought to interpret.
Consequently, the same exception granted to the DBM-DOH Joint Circular cannot be
applied to the DBM-CSC Joint Circular insofar as the requirements on publication and
submission with the UP Law Center-ONAR are concerned. Thus, while it was well within
the authority of the respondents to issue rules regulating the grant of step increments
as provided by RA No. 6758, otherwise known as the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989, which pertinently states:
Section 13. Pay Adjustments. — Paragraphs (b) and (c), Section 15 of
Presidential Decree No. 985 are hereby amended to read as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Step Increments — Effective January 1, 1990 step increments shall
be granted based on merit and/or length of service in accordance with rules
and regulations that will be promulgated jointly by the DBM and the Civil
Service Commission,
and while it was duly published in The Philippine Star, a newspaper of general
circulation, on September 15, 2012, 33 the DBM-CSC Joint Circular remains
unenforceable for the failure of respondents to file the same with the UP Law Center-
ONAR. 34 Moreover, insofar as the DBM-DOH Joint Circular similarly withholds the Step
Increment due to length of service from those who are already being granted Longevity
Pay, the same must likewise be declared unenforceable. 35
Note also that the DBM-DOH Joint Circular must further be invalidated insofar as
it lowers the hazard pay at rates below the minimum prescribed by Section 21 of RA
No. 7305 and Section 7.1.5 (a) of its Revised IRR as follows:
SEC. 21. Hazard Allowance. — Public health worker in hospitals,
sanitaria, rural health units, main centers, health infirmaries, barangay health
stations, clinics and other health-related establishments located in difficult
areas, strife-torn or embattled areas, distressed or isolated stations, prisons
camps, mental hospitals, radiation-exposed clinics, laboratories or disease-
infested areas or in areas declared under state of calamity or emergency for the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 duration thereof which expose them to great danger, contagion, radiation,
volcanic activity/eruption occupational risks or perils to life as determined by the
Secretary of Health or the Head of the unit with the approval of the Secretary of
Health, shall be compensated hazard allowance equivalent to at least twenty-
five percent (25%) of the monthly basic salary of health workers receiving
salary grade 19 and below, and five percent (5%) for health workers with salary
grade 20 and above.
xxx xxx xxx
7.1.5. Rates of Hazard Pay
a. Public health workers shall be compensated hazard allowances
equivalent to at least twenty five (25%) of the monthly basic salary of health
workers, receiving salary grade 19 and below, and five percent (5%) for health
workers with salary grade 20 and above. This may be granted on a monthly,
quarterly or annual basis.
It is evident from the foregoing provisions that the rates of hazard pay must be at
least 25% of the basic monthly salary of PWHs receiving salary grade 19 and below,
and 5% receiving salary grade 20 and above. As such, RA No. 7305 and its
implementing rules noticeably prescribe the minimum rates of hazard pay due all PHWs
in the government, as is clear in the self-explanatory phrase "at least" used in both the
law and the rules. 36 Thus, the following rates embodied in Section 7.2 of DBM-DOH
Joint Circular must be struck down as invalid for being contrary to the mandate of RA
No. 7305 and its Revised IRR:
7.2.1 For PHWs whose positions are at SG-19 and below, Hazard Pay
shall be based on the degree of exposure to high risk or low risk hazards, as
specified in sub-items 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 above, and the number of workdays of
actual exposure over 22 workdays in a month, at rates not to exceed 25% of
monthly basic salary. In case of exposure to both high risk and low risk
hazards, the Hazard Pay for the month shall be based on only one risk level,
whichever is more advantageous to the PHW.
7.2.2 PHWs whose positions are at SG-20 and above may be entitled to
Hazard Pay at 5% of their monthly basic salaries for all days of exposure to
high risk and/or low risk hazards. However, those exposed to high risk hazards
for 12 or more days in a month may be entitled to a fixed amount of P4,989.75
per month.
Rates of Hazard Pay
Actual Exposure/ High Risk Low Risk
Level of Risk

12 or more days 25% of monthly basic salary 14% of monthly basic salary
6 to 11 days 14% of monthly basic salary 8% of monthly basic salary
Less than 6 days 8% of monthly basic salary 5% of monthly basic salary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTLY GRANTED .

The DBM-DOH Joint Circular, insofar as it lowers the hazard pay at rates below the
minimum prescribed by Section 21 of RA No. 7305 and Section 7.1.5 (a) of its Revised
IRR, is declared INVALID. The DBM-CSC Joint Circular, insofar as it provides that an
official or employee authorized to be granted Longevity Pay under an existing law is not
eligible for the grant of Step Increment Due to Length of Service, is declared
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 UNENFORCEABLE. The validity, however, of the DBM-DOH Joint Circular as to the
qualification of actual exposure to danger for the PHW's entitlement to hazard pay, the
rates of P50 and P25 subsistence allowance, and the entitlement to longevity pay on
the basis of the PHW's status in the plantilla of regular positions, is UPHELD.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, ** Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., Perez,
Mendoza and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Sereno, C.J., * Del Castillo * and Reyes, * JJ., are on official leave.
Brion, J., See: Separate Opinion.
Leonen, J., see separate concurring and dissenting opinion.
Jardeleza, J., *** took no part. Prior OSG action.

Footnotes

*On official leave.

**Designated Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2101 dated July 13, 2015.

***No part.

1. Annex "B" to Petition, rollo, pp. 67-83.

2. Annex "A" to Petition, id. at 58-66.

3. Republic Act No. 7305, Sec. 2.

4. Emphasis ours.

5. Section 35. Rules and Regulations. — The Secretary of Health after consultation with
appropriate agencies of the Government as well as professional and health workers'
organizations or unions, shall formulate and prepare the necessary rules and
regulations to implement the provisions of this Act. Rules and regulations issued
pursuant to this Section shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in a newspaper
of general circulation.

6. Emphasis ours.

7. Section 2, supra note 2.

8. Section 6.5, id.

9. Annex "C" to Petition, rollo, pp. 125-127.

10. Emphasis ours.

11. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity
Commission and Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board-Region II, 543 Phil.
318, 328 (2007).

12. Id. at 328-329.

13. Dela Llana v. The Chairperson, Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 180989, February 7, 2012,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com
 665 SCRA 176, 184, Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila,465 Phil.
529 (2004), Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council,
646 Phil. 452, 470-471 (2010).

14. Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
635 Phil. 283, 304, citing Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila,
supra, at 543.

15. Id.

16. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity
Commission and Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board-Region II, supra
note 11, at 329, citing De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza, 493 Phil. 690, 696 (2005); Sismaet
v. Sabas, 473 Phil. 230, 239 (2004); Philippine Bank of Communications v. Torio, 348
Phil. 74, 84 (1998).

17. Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
supra note 14, at 304-305.

18. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity
Commission and Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board-Region II, supra
note 11, at 330.

19. Yusay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011, 647 SCRA 269, 277, citing
Republic v. Yang Chi Hao, 617 Phil. 422, 425 (2009) and Chua v. Court of Appeals, 338
Phil. 262, 269 (1997).

20. Holy Spirit Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Sec. Defensor,529 Phil. 573, 587 (2006).

21. Emphasis ours.

22. Supra note 4.

23. Section 35. Rules and Regulations. — The Secretary of Health after consultation with
appropriate agencies of the Government as well as professional and health workers'
organizations or unions, shall formulate and prepare the necessary rules and
regulations to implement the provisions of this Act. Rules and regulations issued
pursuant to this Section shall take effect thirty (30) days after publication in a
newspaper of general circulation. (Emphasis ours)

24. National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms (NASECORE) v. Energy

Regulatory Commission, 517 Phil. 23, 61-62 (2006).

25. Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, Inc. (ASTEC), et al. v. Energy
Regulatory Commission, G.R. Nos. 192117 and 192118, September 18, 2012, 681
SCRA 119, 151, citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil.
987, 1007 (1996).

26. Id., citing The Veterans Federation of the Philippines v. Reyes,518 Phil. 668, 704 (2006).

27. Id.

28. G.R. No. 190837, March 5, 2014.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com

 29. Rollo, p. 179.

30. Id. at 47.

31. Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 188056, January 8, 2013, 688 SCRA 109, 123,
citing ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima, 584 Phil. 246, 283 (2008).

32. Id.

33. Rollo, p. 179.

34. Araos, et al. v. Hon. Regala, 627 Phil. 13, 22 (2010), citing GMA Network, Inc. v. Movie
Television Review and Classification Board, 543 Phil. 178, 183 (2007).
35. Section 9.5 of DBM-DOH Joint Circular provides:

9.5 On or after the effectivity of this JC, a PHW previously granted Step Increment Due
to Length of Service shall no longer be granted subsequent Step Increment Due to
Length of Service in view of the prohibition in item (4)(d) of said JR No. 4. Likewise, a
PHW hired on or after the effectivity of this JC shall not be granted Step Increment Due
to Length of Service.

36. Re: Entitlement to Hazard Pay of SC Medical and Dental Clinic Personnel,592 Phil. 389,
397 (2008).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 cdasiaonline.com