LBPEA ADVISORY-January 20, 2014

To all R&F:
Please be advised that
1. Step Increment retro 1/1/2014- Management already submitted confirmation request from GCG last January 15;
2. UNTOG- we will propose 1-time bonus same as last year to GCG;
3. MIP2 & 3 once GCG confirmed our MIP1. Management will request for its implementation;
4. CNA Incentive - we will check with DBM whether LBP may release if our F/S is not yet audited by COA.

Let's hope for the best. LBPEA 2013-17

WE ARE HOPING AND PRAYING ALWAYS. . . .SALAMAT PO SA INFO. . . . .

Great!

Isn't it better if we requested the implemetation of the 4th tranche of the IPP to resolve the UNTOGs issue for MIP1?

5213 wrote:

Isn't it better if we requested the implemetation of the 4th tranche of the IPP to resolve the UNTOGs issue for MIP1?

The 4th tranche implementation was actually presented by LBPEA Pres. Allan to GCG during its meeting last January 8, 2014 but unfortunately the response was negative.  GCG will not give clearance for the implementation of salary increases because the GOCCs/GFIs should wait for PNoy's approval of the CPCS which they never gave any assurance as to when.

Hoping for the Best. Lets all pray for that. Thank you LBPEA for your untiring effort in taking "hard steps" for the benefits of everyone in this institution.

I mean, thank you LBPEA Officers....for your untiring effort....

Thanks madam sonia for your prompt reply...

COA: PhilHealth abused authority in P87M bonuses
ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 01/16/2014 11:31 PM | Updated as of 01/16/2014 11:31 PM

The disallowed bonuses and allowances were paid during the administration of PhilHealth president and chief executive officer Francisco T. Duque III, who is now the present chairman of the Civil Service Commission.

The COA ruling specifically rejected the Cost of Living Allowances (COLA) for 1988 to 1995 amounting to P1.281 million; Labor Management Relations Gratuity (LMRG) worth P27.398 million; Welfare Support Assistance (WESA) totaling P54.9 million; Collective Negotiation Agreement (CAN) signing bonus of P4.12 million; and reimbursements of seminar/conference fees in the sum of P64,490 and excessive fuel consumption for service vehicles amounting to P18,383.55.

While acknowledging that Philhealth is authorized to fix the compensation of its personnel under the principle of fiscal autonomy, COA said such power is “not all-encompassing” and must not be construed as an “unbridled discretion to determine compensation of its officers and employees.”

“Petitioner’s payment of COLA back pay to its personnel covering the period July 1, 1988 to January 1995 prior to the creation of PhilHealth in February 1995 is an act constituting grave abuse of authority,” COA said.
*********************

BLITZ wrote:

Tanong lang po, bakit ang MIP benefits natin kailangan pa ang confirmation ng GCG knowing na mga existing benefits na ang mga ito na di na pwedeng idiminish or alisin? It appears that the request for confirmation is just a surplusage or a "play-safe" proposition which the union has acquiesced.

We have already acquired vested right to these benefits by virtue of the continuous and uninterrupted receipt thereof. We cannot be deprived of the same without violating our property right and the principle on non-diminution of benefits because the grant of these benefits are in accordance with law, otherwise if they are unlawful, COA should had issued notice of disallowance in the prior years. Life is really becoming difficult these years!

In response to Sir Blitz:

With the sword of damocles hanging over the heads of the GOCCs/GFIs Management brought about by COA disallowances and should it happen they would be personally liable and not the employees/recipients, I understand their predicament.

But then what do you suggest Sir Blitz that the union should have done other than by acquiescence?

Kindly read the news article above, COLA of PhillHealth employees was disallowed by COA. This COLA was given with legal basis and as a benefit it earned its status as a vested right of PhilHealth employees but then it is subject to COA disallowance.  What may be legally given before if given now without due observance of recent issuances of Malacanang may not be legal anymore in the eyes of COA. What is your take on this Sir Blizt?

The COA disallowance proceeds from the auditors' point of view or COA's own interpretation of the applicable rules/laws. It will be a long process before the legality or illegality will be ruled. 

In a news item, it was stated that "amid conflicting opinions, Malacañang will wait for the courts to settle the legality of bonuses in government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs). Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda cited reports that the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (PhilHealth) would bring to the Supreme Court the Commission on Audit (COA)’s order to refund bonuses and allowances of GOCC executives and employees.


The COLA issue is entirely different because there is a pending issue on this matter with the SC - the main issue raised is the legality of the grant. Hence, as I have said earlier, property rights will attach or  vested right is acquired to these benefits by virtue of the continuous and uninterrupted receipt thereof so long as the basis of the grant is legal because no property right will be acquired from an illegal source no matter how long the giving the benefit was practiced. The case of MIP benefits is entirely different because they spring from lawful authority which grant was never questioned by the COA.


In fact, everytime a COA disallowance was made with LBP, rarely could we find any challenge, as in the case of those beneficiaries of the Rado Watch. Remember? they were automatically required to refund P6,000.00 because of the COA findings....Good for Philhealth because its management/union is persistent in holding on to their stand

Rejoinder: Below is the statement of Sec. Villanueva, Chair of the GCG:

“We were hoping to roll that out through presidential approval before the year ended but things happen. We have had disasters,” Villanueva said.
“One of our major mandates is to remedy that so that there is uniformity within the GOCC sector. That mandate appears in the approval by the President of a compensation and position classification system (CPCS) that will cover all GOCCs.
“Once the CPCS comes into play, it has been vetted properly, it has been compared with NGO salaries, and it has been compared with private sector salary. This will now bind all of the GOCCs,” he added.
But Villanueva admitted that it would not automatically invalidate the non-diminution of benefits rule.
He said the benefits and bonuses that continued over from the Arroyo administration could no longer be decreased for those currently in position. It is only when the posts are vacated and occupied by new people that the new compensation as dictated by the current government can be applied.

Clearly, the GCG acknowleges the fact that existing benefits could no longer be diminished or invalidated by reason of the "non-diminution principle". Compensation package to be brought by the CPCS will fully apply only to new entrants, those present employees may not be affected but only benefited. This is only my humble opinion!

Thanks honorable Atty. Blizt only lawyers use the word REJOINDER and you are a mind-alike with Atty. Semaj501. So happy to have another brilliant lawyer in the website!

Just asking madam sonia, di ba noong mg paapprove tayo ng IPP s Malacañang nun 2011 hanga 4th tranche na ang ipina approve natin, e bakit kailangan natin ulit na mg pa clearance s GCG for its implementation? Approve na nga ni Pnoy?

Thanks madam for the clarification,

Ms. Sonia, this information may help LBPEA in its endeavor for the implementation of IPP's 4th tranche. As a backgrounder, Joint Resolution No. 4 which is the legal basis of the SSL 3 was approved on June 17, 2009 which was implemented in 4 tranches starting June 1, 2009. The Second Trance was on June 1, 2010; the Third Tranche on June 1, 2011 and finally the full implementation on June 1, 2012. On the other hand, LBP's IPP was approved on June 30, 2011 by Malacañang as evidenced by the above letter. During this period, SSL  3 is on its 3rd tranche of implementation. This must be the answer why we were only granted the IPP on its 3rd Tranche in line with SSL 3's 3rd year of implementation at that time. The matrix attached to the approval expressly indicate comparison of IPP and SSL 3 on the 4 yrs/tranches which reinforces my reading that the intention is to align implementation of IPP with SSL3 in four years. During the IPP approval in June 2011, it is logical that the 4th tranche may not be implemented because it is only the 3rd year. However, with reasons known only to the authorities, there was no provision on the IPP approval that the 4th Tranche will be implemented  June 2012 which may be just an oversight. Management relies on the non-inclusion of 4th trance in the approval of Malacañang. Could LBPEA request for clarification based on this argument?

LIKE SIR SEMAJ501

semaj501 wrote:

Ms. Sonia, this information may help LBPEA in its endeavor for the implementation of IPP's 4th tranche. As a backgrounder, Joint Resolution No. 4 which is the legal basis of the SSL 3 was approved on June 17, 2009 which was implemented in 4 tranches starting June 1, 2009. The Second Trance was on June 1, 2010; the Third Tranche on June 1, 2011 and finally the full implementation on June 1, 2012. On the other hand, LBP's IPP was approved on June 30, 2011 by Malacañang as evidenced by the above letter. During this period, SSL  3 is on its 3rd tranche of implementation. This must be the answer why we were only granted the IPP on its 3rd Tranche in line with SSL 3's 3rd year of implementation at that time. The matrix attached to the approval expressly indicate comparison of IPP and SSL 3 on the 4 yrs/tranches which reinforces my reading that the intention is to align implementation of IPP with SSL3 in four years. During the IPP approval in June 2011, it is logical that the 4th tranche may not be implemented because it is only the 3rd year. However, with reasons known only to the authorities, there was no provision on the IPP approval that the 4th Tranche will be implemented  June 2012 which may be just an oversight. Management relies on the non-inclusion of 4th trance in the approval of Malacañang. Could LBPEA request for clarification based on this argument?

Atty Semaj, You're suggestion is very good. But then the 4th tranche implementation was brought out by Pres. Allan during the meeting with GCG last January 8. He informed them that our increase was only interim which caused problems of UNTOG to more than 40% of our employee population thus the solution is the 4th tranche. Unfortunately, GCG's response was negative. They will not give clearance for salary increases because of the pending CPCS. In other words, they were telling the GOCCs/GFIs to wait for the approval of PNoy. But sad for us since there was no timeline as to when.

Verbal request will not hold, it is different when it is made through written requests because the latter is on record especially if supported by legal bases. The statement that clearance for salary increa during the interim period is not true. Why? because no less than the GCG Chair (Villanueva) has stated in GCG's First 200 Days Report that a remedy is available for proposals for salary increases which is: "Salary increases during the interim period may be granted upon recommendation of DBM and approval of the President (Pnoy)" You may read the said report which available online for the exact statement.

erratatum: it should be DBM instead of DBP...please bear also with the errors, tried to edit but could not. Thanks

Atty Semaj, Actually there were several letters sent by KAMAGGFI on the CPCS or the salary increase. Infact, the objective of the meeting last January 8 between KAMAGGFI and GCG was to know the status of our salary increase whether it will be implemented as scheduled within the 1st quarter of 2014. Since the GCG Chairman stated before that the timeline is last quarter of 2013 but did not materialize.

All the union presidents of GOCCs and GFIs where there because of the expectation that a positive result will be had on this meeting. All GOCCs and GFIs expect a salary increase this 1st quarter of the year but, unfortunately, luck did not favor the KAMAGGFI. The attendees were caught offguard when one lawyer of GCG, out of the 4 who where there, informed them that there was no timeline set for the CPCS because it is still the President who has the last say. GCG Chairman Villanueva did not talk during the meeting although he was present but instead only the other lawyers gave statements on the stand of GCG.

According to Pres Allan, KAMAGGFI will prepare an open letter for PNoy.

Fellow Landbankers with what has been discussed in this website, I believe the lobbying must not be at the level of GCG. In the first place their recommendation was already submitted at the office of Pinoy. Therefore, our lobbying is with Office of the Pres. of the Republic. This can be done through peaceful rally at the Palace by KAMAGGFI members, tapping broadcast media and air our concern, or tap print media to caught attention of the Pres. thru the planned "OPEN LETTER TO THE PRES." Dapat kalampagin na natin ang mga natotolog na mga oficial. Huwag na tayung umasa sa GCG dahil lumalayo sila sa essence of their creation. Ang dapat bantayan nila ay ang mga allow ng mga director at Opisyal nga nga GOCCs, hindi ang mga r&f. Ang tagal naman nilang magreview ng CPCS na yan. 

Pwedi ba nating  ma tap ang connection na ginawa ng LBPEA noon sa IPP? Ms. Sonia ikaw ang kailangan namin dito sa approach na eto