SC grants public health workers’ plea
The Supreme Court has backed public health workers (PHWs) who had complained that the budget and health departments, as well as the Civil Service Commission, violated the law when they issued circulars lowering hazard pay rates.
Voting 9-0, the high court en banc invalidated Department of Budget and Management-Department of Health Joint Circular No. 1 issued on Nov. 29, 2012, lowering the hazard pay rates below the minimum prescribed under the Magna Carta for Public Health Workers (Republic Act No. 7305) and its revised implementing rules and regulations (IRR).
Public health workers had filed a class suit against the government agencies that issued the circulars regulating the payment of hazard pay and other benefits granted under the Magna Carta, which was passed in 1992.
In a 19-page decision written by Justice Diosdado Peralta, the high court said Section 21 of the Magna Carta and Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.5 (a) of its revised IRR clearly state that PHWs exposed to work hazards and hardships at least 50 percent of their working hours must be paid minimum hazard pay rates.
Illegally diminished
The hazard pay to be granted was specified to be at least 25 percent of the basic monthly salary for PHWs receiving salary grade 19 (about P33,000) and below; and five percent of the basic monthly salary for those receiving salary grade 20 (about P36,000) and above. The benefits may be granted on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis.
The petitioners, members of the Public Health Association Inc.(PHAI), had contended that the DBM-DOH circular illegally diminished their pay.
The DBM-DOJ circular pegged the hazard pay to actual exposure of over 22 work days in a month at rates “not to exceed 25 percent of monthly salary” for salary grade 19 and below. The circular also stated that PHWs of salary grade 20 and above who were actually exposed for 12 or more days in a month may be entitled to a fixed P4,989.75 hazard pay per month.
In partly granting the PHAI’s certiorari suit, the Supreme Court ruled: “[T]he minimum rates of hazard pay due all PHWs in the government. . .is clear in the self-explanatory phrase ’at least’ used in both the law and the rules. Thus, the rates embodied in the DBM-DOH joint circular must be struck down as invalid for being contrary to the mandate of RA 7305 and its revised IRR.”
Who are entitled?
PHWs entitled to hazard pay are those who work in hospitals, sanitariums, rural health units, 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, prison camps, mental hospitals, radiation-exposed clinics, laboratories and disease-infested areas.
Also covered are PHWs working in areas declared under a state of calamity or emergency which exposes them to great danger, contagion, radiation, volcanic activity, occupational risks and perils to life as determined by the health secretary or their unit head with the secretary’s approval.
The court also declared unenforceable another joint circular of the DBM-Civil Service Commission (dated Sept. 3, 2012) which provides that an official or employee authorized to be granted longevity pay under an existing law was not eligible for the usual grant of increments due to length of service.
The court said it was clear that the law did not impose any conditions on the grant of longevity pay to PHWs in the government service.
Exposure to danger
“As such, the DBM-CSC joint circular effectively created a new imposition which was not otherwise stipulated in the law it sought to interpret,” the high tribunal ruled.
Regarding other issues raised by the PHAI, the Supreme Court upheld the provisions in related circulars on the qualification of actual exposure to danger for the public health workers’ entitlement to hazard pay, the rates of P50 and P25 subsistence allowance, and the entitlement to longevity pay based on the workers’ plantilla position.
Concurring in the decision were justices Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Martin Villarama, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.
Two other justices, Marvic Leonen and Arturo Brion, issued separate opinions but concurred in the result of the voting.
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and Justices Mariano del Castillo and Bienvenido Reyes were on leave when the case was promulgated, while Justice Francis Jardeleza inhibited himself because he had defended the respondent government agencies when he was the solicitor general.
