FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 237729. October 14, 2020.]

SOCIAL HOUSING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.

represented by its President Will O. Peran, petitioner, vs.
SOCIAL HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, respondent.

RESOLUTION

LOPEZ, J : p

The parties in a collective bargaining agreement may establish such

stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient
provided these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order,
or public policy. 1
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 2 dated July 21,
2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 140975.
ANTECEDENTS
On December 24, 2008, Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC), a
government-owned and controlled corporation, and Social Housing
Employees Association, Inc. (SOHEAI), the legitimate labor organization of its
rank-and-file employees, entered into a collective bargaining agreement
(CBA). 3 On December 22, 2011, 4 the parties renegotiated the economic
provisions of the agreement and adjusted several benefits, to wit:
Â

Pertinent CBA Article New Benefits and Increases

1. Â Emergency leave Increase number of leaves from 3

(Article X, Section 4.c) days to 5 days a year.

2. Â Insurance and Health Provide Insurance Coverage for

Benefits accident or injury, including going-
to and coming-to work.

3. Â Transportation Increase from P300 per month to

Allowance (Article X, Section P500 per month.
10)

4. Â Funeral/Bereavement Increase from P10,000 to

Assistance (Article XI, P20,000.00 to match funeral grant
Section 2) given by SSS.

5. Â Children's Allowance Increase from P30/child to

(Article X, Section 15) P100/child a month.
 6. Â Employee Activities Increase from P877/employee to
Subsidy (Article XI, Section P1,200/employee per year.
4)

7. Â Provident Fund (Article Increase corporate share in the

X, Section 3) Provident Fund from 15% to 25%.

8. Â Anniversary Bonus A new provision-provide for an

anniversary bonus of P3,000.00
consistent with Administrative
Order 263, series of 1996. 5

Â
On January 17, 2012, the Governance Commission for government-
owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) (The Commission) informed SHFC
that it has no authority to negotiate new increases and benefits. 6 The
Commission explained that Executive Order (EO) No. 7 dated September 8,
2010 provides a moratorium on increases in salaries, allowances, incentives
and other benefits in the GOCCs. Moreover, Republic Act (RA) No. 10149, 7
approved on June 6, 2011 authorizes the Commission to develop a
compensation and position classification system which shall apply to all
officers and employees of the GOCCs whether under the Salary
Standardization Law or exempt therefrom, subject to the approval of the
President.
Accordingly, SHFC revoked the new benefits and increases effective
immediately. 8 Aggrieved, SOHEAI requested for a reconsideration and
argued that the revocation violated the policy on non-diminution of benefits.
9 SOHEAI likewise alleged that the grant of annual State of the Nation

Address (SONA) bonus in the amount of P50,000.00 per employee ripened

into a regular benefit. However, SHFC denied the request. 10 After the
unsuccessful grievance mechanism, SOHEAI requested for preventive
mediation with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. 11 Meantime
on December 3, 2013, the parties entered into a new CBA. 12
Upon failure of mediation, SOHEAI submitted the controversy to the
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (PVA). 13 SHFC, however, claimed that the PVA
has no jurisdiction to settle the issues on the adjustments of the CBA's
economic provisions and on whether the SONA bonus has ripened into a
regular benefit. Furthermore, SHFC cannot implement the new benefits and
increases based on EO No. 7 and RA No. 10149.
On May 12, 2015, the PVA ruled in favor of SOHEAI and ordered SHFC
to comply with the collective bargaining agreements. Also, it found that the
SONA bonus ripened into a regular benefit, 14 thus:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is
hereby rendered:
1. Â Ordering SHFC to strictly comply with the terms and
conditions of the CBA dated December 22, 2011 and
December 3, 2013 by granting unto the members of the
SOHEAI the new benefits and increases as provided
 therein.
2. Â Declaring the SONA Bonus as having ripened into a
regular benefit in favor of SHFC employees.
3. Â Ordering the SHFC to grant the unpaid SONA bonus from
2011 until the same is finally paid in favor of SHFC
employees.
SO ORDERED. 15

On June 11, 2015, SHFC received a copy of the Decision. On June 25,
2015, SHFC elevated the case to the CA through a Petition for Review 16
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. SHFC maintained that the PVA has no
jurisdiction over the case and reiterated that it has no other recourse but to
follow the Governance Commission's directive. In addition, the SONA bonus
is not among the benefits authorized by law. Meanwhile, SOHEAI moved for
the issuance of a writ of execution. 17 On August 26, 2015, the PVA granted
the motion and directed the garnishment of SHFC's funds. 18
On July 21, 2017, the CA annulled the PVA's ruling for lack jurisdiction.
The CA noted that there have been laws already effective which provide that
the approval of the President must first be obtained for the establishment of
the compensation, allowances, and benefit systems in all GOCCs.
Specifically, the new and increased benefits are contrary to EO No. 7 and RA
No. 10149. Moreover, the SONA bonus is a mere gratuity and not a
demandable obligation. As such, no writ of execution or garnishment should
have been issued, 19 viz.:
There is merit in the petition. The PVA has no jurisdiction
over the present case.
xxx xxx xxx
In essence, SOHEAI is questioning the policy formulated and
sought to be implemented by the GCG when it prohibited petitioner
from abiding by the economic provisions of the 22 December 2011
and 3 December 2013 CBAs concerning the implementation of new
benefits and increases, having for its bases Section 9 of EO 7 and RA
10149. x x x.
It must be realized that the enactment on 6 June 2011 of RA
10149 or the "GOCC Governance Act of 2011" amended the
provisions in the charters of GOCCs and Government Financial
Institutions (GFIs) empowering their Board of Directors/Trustees to
determine their own compensation system in favor of the grant of
authority to the President of the Philippines to perform this act. In
other words, with the enactment of RA 10149, the President
is now authorized to fix the compensation framework of
GOCCs. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
x x x This means that the President can now issue an EO
containing these same provisions without any legal constraints. It is
pertinent to say, at this point, that considering the terms of
RA 10149, the Governing Boards and Managements of all
GOCCs are without authority to enter into negotiations for the
economic provisions of CBAs.
That the subject CBAs, as pointed out by the PVA, are mere
offshoots of the first CBA executed on 24 December 2008, "or long
before the existence of the GCG," is of no significance. For, as early as
when Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1597 was issued on 11 June 1978,
agencies positions, or groups of officials and employees of the
national government, including all GOCCs, were already instructed to
observe such guidelines and policies as may be issued by the
President governing position classification, salary rates, levels of
allowances, project and other honoraria, overtime rates, and other
forms of compensation and fringe benefits. The authority to approve
the grant of allowances and other benefits is vested in the President.
Subsequently, and before the subject CBAs were executed on
22 December 2011 and 3 December 2013, the Senate and House of
Representatives Joint Resolution (JR) No. 4 (Series of 2009), otherwise
known as the "Salary Standardization Law III," authorized the
President to "approve policies and levels of allowances and benefits."
x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Indeed, there have been laws already effective, even
before the enactment of RA 10149, which provide that the
approval of the President must first be obtained for the
establishment of the compensation, allowances, and benefit
systems in all GOCCs. Even RA 10149 itself was enacted prior
to the execution of the subject CBAs. It is in this vein that We
cannot subscribe to the PVA's view that it has jurisdiction
over this suit; especially so with regard to the grant of the
SONA bonus. Whether the SONA bonus, which is not even a
part of the economic provisions of the CBAs, should be
granted to SOHEAI members is clearly outside the jurisdiction
of the PVA.
Withal, with the issuance of EO 7 on 8 September 2010,
the board of directors/trustees and officers of GOCCs were
precluded from increasing the salary rates of, and granting
additional benefits to, their employees. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
The texts of the legal provisions are clear: that EO 7
extends to all GOCCs regardless of the manner of their
creation. The EO does not distinguish between GOCCs created
under a special law and those created under the Corporation
Code. Where the law does not distinguish, the courts should not
distinguish. There should be no distinction in the application of a
statute where none is indicated. Where the law does not make any
exception, the courts may not exempt something therefrom, unless
there is compelling reason to the contrary. Petitioner SHFC is thus
covered by EO 7, particularly by its provision on the moratorium on
increases in salary rates, and the grant of new increases in the rates
of allowances, incentives, and other benefits to members of the board
of directors/trustees, officers, and rank-and-file employees of the
GOCCs.
 Moreover, on 21 December 2011, or a day before the signing of
the CBA on 22 December 2011, petitioner issued Board Resolution
No. 274 approving the new CBA, but subject to, the approval of the
GCG. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Since this approval of the GCG was not secured, the CBA
never became effective including the new benefits under it.
Given the foregoing, SOHEAI cannot now insist on the
implementation of the new and increased benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
Verily, RA 10149 declares the policy of the State to ensure,
among other things, that reasonable, justifiable, and appropriate
remuneration schemes are adopted for the directors/trustees,
officers, and employees of GOCCs and their subsidiaries to prevent or
deter the granting of unconscionable and excessive remuneration
packages. Section 9 of the law unequivocally states that, any law to
the contrary notwithstanding, no GOCC shall be exempt from the
coverage of the CPCS.
It may not be amiss to add, at this juncture, that on 22 March
2016, President Aquino issued EO 203 approving the CPCS and the
Index of Occupational Services (IOS) Framework for the GOCC Sector
that was developed by the GCG. The EO provides, inter alia , that
while recognizing the constitutional right of workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, the
Governing Boards of all GOCCs, whether chartered or non-
chartered, may not negotiate with their officers and
employees the economic terms of their CBAs.
Furthermore, We do not agree with the PVA that the
SONA bonus has already ripened into a regular benefit.
Generally, employees have a vested right over existing benefits
voluntarily granted to them by their employer. Thus, any benefit and
supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced,
diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer. However,
there must be an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to
continue giving the benefit knowing fully well that the employees are
not covered by any provision of the law or agreement requiring
payment thereof.
xxx xxx xxx
x x x the SONA bonus is not among those authorized by
law to be granted to employees of GOCCs. Thus, with the
enactment of EO 7, the grant of the SONA bonus from year
2011 can no longer be allowed. After all, a bonus is a mere
gratuity or act of liberality of the giver. It is not a
demandable and enforceable obligation.
We cannot give Our imprimatur to the PVA's holding that the
subject CBAs are "already perfected and enforceable contracts," and
as such, petitioner cannot be allowed to renege on their
implementation. It suffices to say that parties to a contract may
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as
they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to
 law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. True,
petitioner and SOHEAI may enter into a contract, but, it
should not be contrary to EO 7 and RA 10149.
All things considered, We hold that no writ of execution
or garnishment should have been issued in favor of SOHEAI. x
x x.
xxx xxx xxx
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition for review is GRANTED. The
Decision, dated 12 May 2015 of the Office of the Panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators and its Order dated 28 October 2015, for the garnishment
of the funds of the Social Housing Finance Corporation are hereby
ANNULLED.
The Court ORDERS the Social Housing Employees Association,
Inc. to redeposit the amount of P70,228,467.79 to the depository
bank of petitioner within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED. 20 (Emphases supplied; citations omitted.)
SOHEAI sought reconsideration 21 but was denied. 22 Hence, this
recourse. SOHEAI insists that the CA should have dismissed outright the
SHFC's appeal. SHFC failed to exhaust the administrative remedies when it
did not avail of a motion for reconsideration before the PVA. Worse, the
appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period since decisions of
voluntary arbitrators shall be final and executory after 10 calendar days from
notice. Also, SOHEAI avers that the PVA has jurisdiction over the CBA
interpretation and implementation. The new benefits and increases must be
given because SHFC negotiated on them despite knowledge of the
moratorium. Likewise, the SONA bonus have been granted to employees
since 2007. Lastly, the writ of execution is proper since SHFC's funds are not
exempt from garnishment. 23
RULING
The petition is unmeritorious.
On procedural matters, the CA did not err in giving due course to
SHFC's appeal from the PVA's Decision. Foremost, the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies is not absolute and a litigant may immediately
resort to judicial action when the question raised is purely legal. 24 In this
case, there is no issue of fact involved and the controversy centers on
whether SHFC lacks authority to negotiate on the economic provisions of the
CBA in view of the prohibitions under EO No. 7 and RA No. 10149.
Undoubtedly, the issue is a pure question of law. The Court need only to look
at the applicable rule to determine whether the adjusted benefits and
bonuses may be implemented.
Similarly, the appeal was timely filed. Under the Labor Code, the award
or decision of PVA shall be final and executory after 10 calendar days from
notice. 25 On the other hand, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that an
appeal from the judgment or final orders of voluntary arbitrators must be
made within 15 days from notice. 26 With these, the Court has alternatively
used the 10-day or 15-day reglementary periods. 27 However, the confusion
has been settled in Guagua National Colleges v. Court of Appeals. 28 In that
case, we clarified that the 10-day period in Article 276 should be understood
as the time within which the adverse party may move for a reconsideration
from the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrators. 29 Thereafter, the
aggrieved party may appeal to the CA within 15 days from notice pursuant to
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. 30 Here, SHFC received on June 11, 2015 a
copy of the PVA's Decision and has 15 days or until June 26, 2015 within
which to perfect an appeal. On June 25, 2015, SHFC filed a petition for
review with the CA or 14 days after notice of the Decision which is well
within the prescribed period.
Anent the merits of this case, we stress that the SOHEAI and SHFC may
establish in their CBAs such terms and conditions that are not contrary to
law. 31 Notably, there are existing and subsequent laws prohibiting GOCCs
like SHFC from negotiating the CBAs' economic provisions. In 1978, the grant
of allowances and other benefits to GOCCs must have the approval of the
President upon the recommendation of the Budget Commissioner. 32 In
2009, the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4
authorized the President to approve policies and levels of allowances and
benefits. 33 In 2010, EO No. 7 provides a moratorium on increases in
salaries, allowances, incentives and other benefits in the GOCCs. 34 In 2011,
RA No. 10149 created the Governance Commission for GOCCs and mandated
it to develop a compensation and position classification system subject to
the approval of the President. 35 In 2016, EO No. 203 expressly disallowed
the governing boards of GOCCs, whether chartered or non-chartered, to
negotiate the economic terms of their CBAs. 36
As the CA aptly observed, EO No. 7 and RA No. 10149 are already
effective before the negotiation and execution of the 2011 and 2013 CBAs
between SOHEAI and SHFC. To be sure, the Governance Commission did not
approve the economic terms of the CBAs and informed SHFC that it cannot
implement the new benefits and increases. On this score, we stress that
GOCCs officials and employees are not entitled to benefits and increases
without the approval of the President or the Governance Commission.
Corollarily, the SHFC's revocation of the CBAs' economic provisions can
hardly amount to diminution of benefits. Suffice it to say that SOHEAI is not
entitled to the new benefits and increases which yield neither legal nor
binding effect. In PCSO v. Pulido-Tan , 37 the petitioner's governing board
modified the salaries and benefits of its employees. Nevertheless, the Court
ruled that petitioner as a GOCC is covered by the Department of Budget and
Management's compensation and position standards. Consequently,
petitioner's officials and employees were disallowed to receive the benefits
and increases. Also, in GSIS Family Bank Employees Union v. Villanueva , 38
the petitioner and the GSIS Family Bank, a GOCC, were prohibited from
engaging in negotiations or develop and implement the benefits and
increases pursuant to RA No. 10149 and EO No. 203.
Similarly, SOHEAI is not entitled to SONA bonus. A law must authorize
the benefit before it may be granted to government officials or employees.
39 Yet, the SONA bonus was given merely as a gratuity. It is not expressly or
impliedly anchored in any law. The bonus is not even mentioned in the 2011
and 2013 CBAs. It is neither made part of the wage, salary or compensation
of the employee, nor promised by the employer and expressly agreed upon
by the parties. 40 We quote with approval the pertinent findings of the CA,
thus:
In the present case, it must be recalled that petitioner started
to give the SONA bonus or the SONA Incentive Award of P50,000.00
to each of its employees in 2007, raised it to P60,000.00 in 2009, and
continued giving it up to 2010. Petitioner approved the grant of this
Incentive Award in virtue of former President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo's recognition of its performance in nation building and the
accomplishment of her Ten Point Agenda in her State of the Nation
Address. But, EO 7, which was issued on 8 September 2010 provides:
"SECTION 3. Â Total Compensation Framework. — All
remuneration granted to members of the board of
directors/trustees, officers and rank-and-file employees of
GOCCs and GFIs shall be categorized in accordance with
the Total Compensation Framework established under
Item (4) of J.R. No. 4. Under this framework, total
payment for services rendered by personnel shall be
limited to the following categories:
a. Â Basic Salaries, including Step Increments;
b. Â Standard Allowances and Benefits which are
given to all employees across agencies;
c. Â Specific-Purpose Allowances and Benefits
which are given under specific conditions, based on
actual performance of work; and
d. Â Incentives, which are rewards for loyalty to
government service and for exceeding performance
targets."
It is clear from the above provision that the SONA bonus
is not among those authorized by law to be granted to
employees of GOCCs. Thus, with the enactment of EO 7, the
grant of the SONA bonus from year 2011 can no longer be
allowed. After all, a bonus is a mere gratuity or act of
liberality of the giver. It is not a demandable and enforceable
obligation. 41 (Emphasis supplied.)
Lastly, the CA is correct that no writ of execution or garnishment
should have been issued in favor of SOHEAI because SHFC's funds are
considered public. The rule is and has always been that all government
funds are not subject to garnishment or levy, in the absence of a
corresponding appropriation as required by law. It is based on obvious
considerations of public policy that the functions and services rendered by
the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of
public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by
law. 42
At any rate, the Commission on Audit (COA) must first approve
SOHEAI's money claims even after the issuance of a writ of execution. 43
Apropos is Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 44 which vested COA
the authority to examine, audit, and settle all debts and claims of any sort
due from or owing to the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies,
or instrumentalities, including all GOCCs, viz.:
Section 26. Â General jurisdiction. — The authority and
powers of the Commission shall extend to and comprehend all
matters relating to auditing procedures, systems and controls, the
keeping of the general accounts of the Government, the preservation
of vouchers pertaining thereto for a period of ten years, the
examination and inspection of the books, records, and papers relating
to those accounts; and the audit and settlement of the accounts of all
persons respecting funds or property received or held by them in an
accountable capacity, as well as the examination, audit, and
settlement of all debts and claims of any sort due from or
owing to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies
and instrumentalities. The said jurisdiction extends to all
government-owned or controlled corporations, including their
subsidiaries, and other self-governing boards, commissions, or
agencies of the Government, and as herein prescribed, including
nongovernmental entities subsidized by the government, those
funded by donations through the government, those required to pay
levies or government share, and those for which the government has
put up a counterpart fund or those partly funded by the government.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Verily, all money claims against the Government must first be filed
with the COA which must act upon it within 60 days. The rejection of the
claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court
o n certiorari and, in effect, sue the State. 45 Otherwise, the claim is
premature and must fail. 46
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals'
Decision dated July 21, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 140975 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier and Rosario, JJ., concur.
Â
Footnotes

1. Hongkong Bank Independent Labor Union (HBILU) Hongkong and Shanghai

Banking Corp. Limited, 826 Phil. 816, 838 (2018).

2. Rollo , pp. 56-85; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Carmelita
Salandanan Manahan.

3. Id. at 6.

4. Id. at 90-103.

5. Id. at 6-7.

6. Id. at 111-115.
7. GOCC Governance Act of 2011.

8. Rollo , p. 110.

9. Id. at 116-117.

10. Id. at 118.

11. Id. at 9.

12. Id. at 126-138.

13. Id. at 447-449. The following issues were submitted: (1) whether or not the
Voluntary Arbitrators have jurisdiction to settle the issues involved
considering the rulings made by the Governance [Commission] for GOCC's
(GCG); (2) whether or not the complainants are entitled to the benefits
claimed despite the prohibition made by the GCG; (3) whether or not the
adjustment in the economic provisions as stated in the CBA of 2011 & 2013
may be implemented; and (4) whether or not the SONA bonus has ripened
into a regular benefit in favor of the employees. Id. at 449.

14. Id. at 204-230.

15. Id. at 230.

16. Id. at 231-256.

17. Id. at 258-261.

18. Id. at 308-311.

19. Id. at 56-84.

20. Id. at 71-84.

21. Id. at 405-446.

22. Id. at 87-88.

23. Id. at 3-49.

24. Castro v. Sec. Gloria, 415 Phil. 645, 651-652 (2001).

25. LABOR CODE, Art. 276.

26. RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, Sec. 4.

27. In Sevilla Trading Co. v. Semana, 472 Phil. 220, 231 (2004), the Court
established that the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator became final and
executory upon the expiration of the 15-day period within which to elevate
the same to the CA via a Petition for Review under Rule 43. In Coca-Cola
Bottlers Phils., Inc., Sales Force Union-PTGWO-Balais v. Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phils., Inc., 502 Phil. 748, 754 (2005), the Court declared that the decision of
the Voluntary Arbitrator had become final and executory because it was
appealed beyond the 10-day reglementary period under Article 262-A of the
Labor Code. In Philippine Electric Corp. (PHILEC) v. Court of Appeals, et al.,
 749 Phil. 686, 708 (2014), the Court, in recognizing the variant usage of the
periods, held that despite Rule 43 providing for a 15-day period to appeal, we
rule that the Voluntary Arbitrator's Decision must be appealed before the
Court of Appeals within 10 calendar days from receipt of the Decision as
provided in the Labor Code.

28. G.R. No. 188492, August 28, 2018, 878 SCRA 362.

29. Id. at 384.

30. Id.

31. Supra note 1.

32. PD No. 1597, Sec. 5. Allowances, Honoraria, and Other Fringe Benefits. —
Allowances, honoraria and other fringe benefits which may be granted to
government employees, whether payable by their respective offices or by
other agencies of government, shall be subject to the approval of the
President upon recommendation of the Commissioner of the Budget. For this
purpose, the Budget Commission shall review on a continuing basis and shall
prepare, for the consideration and approval of the President, policies and
levels of allowances and other fringe benefits applicable to government
personnel, including honoraria or other forms of compensation for
participation in projects which are authorized to pay additional
compensation.

Sec. 6. Exemptions from OCPC Rules and Regulations. — Agencies positions,

or groups of officials and employees of the national government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations, who are hereafter exempted
by law from OCPC coverage, shall observe such guidelines and policies as
may be issued by the President governing position classification, salary rates,
levels of allowances, project and other honoraria, overtime rates, and other
forms of compensation and fringe benefits. Exemptions notwithstanding,
agencies shall report to the President, through the Budget Commission, on
their position classification and compensation plans, policies, rates and other
related details following such specifications as may be prescribed by the
President.

33. Item No. 9 of JR No. 4 provides: "(9) Exempt Entities. — Government agencies
which by specific provision/s of laws are authorized to have their own
compensation and position classification system shall not be entitled to the
salary adjustments provided herein. Exempt entities shall be governed by
their respective Compensation and Position Classification Systems: Provided,
That such entities shall observe the policies, parameters and guidelines
governing position classification, salary rates, categories and rates of
allowances, benefits and incentives, prescribed by the President: Provided
further, That any increase in the existing salary rates as well as the
grant of new allowances, benefits and incentives or an increase in
the rates thereof shall be subject to the approval by the President,
upon recommendation of the DBM x x x." (Emphasis supplied.)

34. EO No. 7, SEC. 9. Moratorium on Increases in Salaries, Allowances, Incentives,

and Other Benefits. — Moratorium on increases in the rates of salaries, and
the grant of new or increases in the rates of allowances, incentives and other
benefits, except salary adjustments pursuant to Executive Order No. 8011
 dated June 17, 2009 and Executive Order No. 900 dated June 23, 2010, are
hereby imposed until specifically authorized by the President; signed on
September 8, 2010.

35. RA No. 10149, SEC. 5. Creation of the Governance Commission for

Government-Owned or-Controlled Corporations. — There is hereby created a
central advisory, monitoring, and oversight body with authority to formulate,
implement and coordinate policies to be known as the Governance
Commission for Government-Owned or -Controlled Corporations, hereinafter
referred to as the GCG, which shall be attached to the Office of the President.
x x x.

SEC. 8. Coverage of the Compensation and Position Classification System. —

The GCG, after conducting a compensation study, shall develop a
Compensation and Position Classification System which shall apply to all
officers and employees of the GOCCs whether under the Salary
Standardization Law or exempt therefrom and shall consist of classes of
positions grouped into such categories as the GCG may determine, subject to
the approval of the President; approved on June 6, 2011.

36. EO No. 203, S. 2016, SEC. 2. Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) and
Collective Negotiation Agreements (CNA) in the GOCC Sector. — While
recognizing the constitutional right of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, the Governing Boards of all covered GOCCs,
whether Chartered or Non-chartered, may not negotiate with their officers
and employees the economic terms of their CBAs; signed on March 22, 2016.

37. 785 Phil. 266 (2016).

38. G.R. No. 210773, January 23, 2019.

39. Maritime Industry Authority v. Commission on Audit , 750 Phil. 288, 330 (2015);
Yap v. Commission on Audit , 633 Phil. 174, 192 (2010).

40. Mega Magazine Publications, Inc. v. Defensor, 736 Phil. 342, 350 (2014).

41. Rollo , pp. 79-81.

42. City of Caloocan v. Hon. Allarde, 457 Phil. 543, 553 (2003).

43. See Star Special Watchman and Detective Agency, Inc. v. Puerto Princesa City,
733 Phil. 62, 81 (2014). See also Section 26 of PD No. 1445 or the
Government Auditing Code of the Philippines.

44. Government Auditing Code of the Philippines; approved on June 11, 1978.

45. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-2000, October 25, 2000.

46. Republic of the Philippines v. Benjohn Fetalvero, G.R. No. 198008; February 4,
2019.