SC upholds lower court ruling in case vs PPA

CEBU, Philippines – A decision of the Regional Trial Court, which ordered the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) to pay its 28 employees their cost of living allowance (COLA) and amelioration allowance (AA) since 2008, stays.

This after the Supreme Court dismissed PPA’s petition, which sought to set aside a decision of the Court of Appeals that upheld the RTC decision.

It was on December 4, 2008 when the RTC ordered PPA to pay the 28 workers their COLA and AA differentials from July 15, 1999.

The case stemmed from a civil suit filed by the Coalition of Philippine Ports Authority Officers and Employees represented by Hector Miole on February 28, 2008 before the RTC in Cebu City.

Miole and 27 other employees asked the court to order PPA to pay them their back wages as mandated by the Republic Act 6758 or the Salary Standardization Law of July 1989.

They claimed that they were not given their COLA and amelioration allowance for nine years, starting on July 15, 1999, following the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) corporate compensation circular that required that the COLA and AA should be integrated into the basic pay.

But even after the order took effect in 1999, the take-home pay of the employees allegedly did not increase with the expected integration of the COLA and the AA and, instead, decreased with the cutting off of the COLA and AA as shown in the matrix of employee’s salary and benefits.

They asked for damages amounting to P800,000.

The RTC ruled in favor of the workers and the ruling was upheld by the CA when PPA raised the case there. On July 27, 2011, the CA ruled that the RTC has the discretion to hear the case.

PPA Arguments

The agency tried to stop the RTC from ruling on the case, saying the workers had no legal standing to file the petition as they allegedly did not secure the required powers of attorney from the PPA employees. They reportedly were not the recognized representative of the employees.

PPA said there was no cause of action against it since the payments of the COLA and AA to the employees were stopped on March 16, 1999 pursuant to the DBM circular.

PPA also claimed another case is still pending between the parties involving the same subject matter and issues and that the documents used in filing the case against the agency were obtained allegedly without its authority.

On September 5, 2008, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration of PPA for lack of merit, which prompted the agency to file a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

SC ruling

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, the SC Second Division dismissed PPA’s petition for being moot and academic. 

“Similarly, this case is not among those exceptional cases that must be adjudicated although the issues have become moot and academic,” the ruling reads.

However, the SC ruled that there is no need to resolve the petition of PPA and review the trial court’s issuance of its orders after it has already rendered judgment in the case.

“The issues in the present case call for an appraisal of factual considerations which are peculiar only to the transactions and parties involved in this controversy. The issues raised in this petition do not call for a clarification of any constitutional principle. Perforce, the Court dispenses with the need to adjudicate the instant case,” the SC decision reads. — (FREEMAN)