Effect of RA 10149 (GOCC Act of 2011) on EO 43

With the enactment of RA 10149, it is very interesting to anticipate its effect on a provision of LBP's EO 43 (Rules on Administrative Disciplinary Cases at LBP). Specifically, enumerated under item M. No. 4 are the effects of the pendency of an administrative case. It says that when an administrative case is pending, the respondent shall be disqualified from promotion but shall entitle him/her to salaries, PERA/ACA, RATA, Year-end bonus, and Cash Gift. It further states that benefits granted by the Bank which are non-statutory shall be withheld during the pendency of administrative case except those charged with light offenses.

Take note that this internal rule contravenes the provision of URAC particularly Section 34 which states that: "Pendency of an administrative case shall not disqualify respondent for promotion or from claiming maternity/paternity benefits" xxx it does not disqualify the employee from receiving monetary benefits.

Now, will the controversial "non-statutory benefits" continue to be withheld if there is a pending admin case in the advent of the GOCC Act?

For Atty. semaj501:

" Benefits granted by the Bank which are non-statutory shall be withheld during pendency of administrative case except those charged with light offenses."

How do we define or qualify "light offenses?"

Sec. 52 of MC No. 19, s.1999 otherwise known as “The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service” provides the Classification of Administrative Offenses as Grave, Less Grave or Light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service. The following are Light Offenses:
1. Discourtesy in the course of official duties
2. Improper or unauthorized solicitation of contributions from subordinate employees and by teachers or school officials from school children
3. Violation of reasonable office rules and regulations
4. Frequent unauthorized tardiness (Habitual Tardiness)
5. Gambling prohibited by law
6. Refusal to render overtime service
7. Disgraceful, immoral or dishonest conduct prior to entering the service
8. Borrowing money by superior officers from subordinates
9. Lending money at usurious rates of interest.
10. Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes due to the government. The term “just debts” shall apply only to:
1. Claims adjudicated by a court of law, or
2. Claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.
11. Lobbying for personal interest or gain in legislative halls and offices without authority
12. Promoting the sale of tickets in behalf of private enterprises that are not intended for charitable or public welfare purposes and even in the latter cases, if there is no prior authority
13. Failure to act promptly on letters and request within fifteen (15) days from receipt, except as otherwise provided in the rules implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
14. Failure to process documents and complete action on documents and papers within a reasonable time from preparation thereof, except as otherwise provided in the rules implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
15. Failure to attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of the office, or act promptly and expeditiously on public transactions
16. Engaging in private practice of his profession unless authorized by the Constitution, law or regulation, provided that such practice will not conflict with his official functions.
17. Pursuit of private business, vocation or profession without the permission required by Civil Service rules and regulations

LBP has a counterpart on this rule which is covered by EO 43. I am not sure if there is another definition of a Light Offense in it.

For Atty. semaj501:

Do we consider "Admonished or Reprimanded" a light offense? If so, why those who have such AAC decision were deprived of the LBP non-statutory benefits like MIP2? Query lang po Atty.

@ Gary: Philippine Law Dictionary by Federico B. Moreno defines admonition and reprimand as follows:
• Reprimand – A public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered to a person in fault by his superior officer or a body to which he belong. It is more than just a warning or admonition.

A reprimand is an administrative penalty although it may be a slight form of penalty. It is a disciplinary punishment (Tobias vs Veloso, L-40224, 100 SCRA 184, Sept. 23, 1980)

• Admonition – A gentle or friendly reproof, a mild rebuke, warning or reminder, counseling, on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or warning. It is not considered as an administrative penalty (Tobias vs Veloso, L-40224, 100 SCRA 184, Sept. 23, 1980)

As defined, admonition is not an administrative penalty. On the other hand, reprimand is the lowest administrative penalty imposable for light offenses. This is expressly indicated in the URAC, Rule IV, Sec. 52.C, which sets the penalties for Light Offenses as follows:
1st Offense – Reprimand
2nd Offense – Suspension 1 -30 days
3rd Offense – Dismissal

As to why those who have such AAC decision were deprived of the LBP non-statutory benefits like MIP2, this pending issue should be better addressed by the administrator of this blog because we have already raised the same repeatedly with PAD in support to the pending MPI2 claim of a colleague in our unit. We have questioned the propriety of the withholding through series of letter, in fact even pleaded for its release... The matter is still pending for quite a time now! I heard that a dialogue on this matter will occur between NEB and Management.

semaj501 wrote:

As to why those who have such AAC decision were deprived of the LBP non-statutory benefits like MIP2, this pending issue should be better addressed by the administrator of this blog because we have already raised the same repeatedly with PAD in support to the pending MPI2 claim of a colleague in our unit. We have questioned the propriety of the withholding through series of letter, in fact even pleaded for its release... The matter is still pending for quite a time now! I heard that a dialogue on this matter will occur between NEB and Management.

any update from the NEB regarding the dialogue?