BITONIO, JR. v.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT - Under the Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court held
b) Basis of Right to Compensation | March 12, 2004 | G.R. No. 147392 | J. that cabinet members, their deputies and assistants
Callejo holding other offices in addition to their primary office and
to receive compensation therefore was declared
GROUP: 2 unconstitutional.
DIGEST MAKER: Godornes  Arguments of petitioner:
- Officials given the rank equivalent to a Secretary,
SUMMARY: Petitioner was appointed as the Director IV of the Bureau of Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary and other
Labor Relations and was designated as the DOLE Secretary’s appointive officials below the rank of Assistant Secretary
representative to the Board of Directors of PEZA. Pursuant to R.A. No. are not covered by the prohibition.
7916, petitioner received a per die for every board meeting he attended. - R.A. No. 7916, the legal basis for the payment of per
However, such payments were disallowed by the COA invoking the ruling of diems to petitioner, was enacted four years after the Civil
the Supreme Court in the case of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Liberties Union was decided. It is, therefore, assumed that
Secretary. the legislature, before enacting a law, was aware of the
prior holdings of the courts.
The Supreme Court upheld the disallowance holding that the DOLE
Secretary is an ex officio member of the PEZA Board. As an ex officio
member, he was actually and in legal contemplation performing the primary ISSUE/S & RATIO:
function of his principal office for which he is not entitled to collect any extra
compensation, whether it be in the form of a per diem or an honorarium or 1. WON the COA correctly disallowed the per diems received by the
an allowance, or some other such euphemism. petitioner for his attendance in the PEZA Board of Directors meetings
as representative of the Secretary of Labor – YES
Since petitioner’s presence in the PEZA Board is solely by virtue of his  In Civil Liberties Union, the Court declared Executive Order No. 2848
capacity as representative of the DOLE Secretary, it follows that the allowing government officials to hold multiple positions in government,
prohibition from receiving compensation for the additional office or unconstitutional. Thus, Cabinet Secretaries, Undersecretaries, and
employment likewise applies to the petitioner. their Assistant Secretaries, are prohibited to hold other
government offices or positions in addition to their primary
DOCTRINE: An ex officio member is actually and in legal positions and to receive compensation therefor, except in cases
contemplation performing the primary function of his principal office . where the Constitution expressly provides.
For such attendance, therefore, he is not entitled to collect any extra - In the same case, the Court also held that the ex-officio
compensation, whether it be in the form of a per diem or an position being actually and in legal contemplation part
honorarium or an allowance, or some other such euphemism. of the principal office, it follows that the official
concerned has no right to receive additional
FACTS: compensation for his services in the said position. These
 Petitioner Bitonio, Jr. was appointed Director IV of the Bureau of services are already paid for and covered by the
Labor Relations in the DOLE. He was then designated as the DOLE compensation attached to his principal office.
Representative to the Board of Directors of PEZA. - As an ex officio member, the officer is actually and in
 Section 11 of R.A. No. 7916 or the Special Economic Zone Act of legal contemplation performing the primary function
1995 provides that the “[m]embers of the Board shall receive a per of his principal office. For such attendance, therefore, he
diem of not less than the amount equivalent to the representation and is not entitled to collect any extra compensation, whether it
transportation allowances of the members of the Board and/or as may be in the form of a per diem or an honorarium or an
be determined by the Department of Budget and Management x x x” allowance, or some other such euphemism. The reason is
 Pursuant thereto, petitioner received a per diem for every board that these services are already paid for and covered by
meeting he attended. the compensation attached to the principal office.
 However, the COA disallowed the payment of per diems to the  IN THE PRESENT CASE, petitioner’s presence in the PEZA Board
petitioner invoking the ruling of the Supreme Court in Civil Liberties meetings is solely by virtue of his capacity as representative of
Union vs. Executive Secretary. the Secretary of Labor. As the petitioner himself admitted, there was
no separate or special appointment for such position. Since the
 Secretary of Labor is prohibited from receiving compensation for
his additional office or employment, such prohibition likewise
applies to the petitioner who sat in the Board only in behalf of the
Secretary of Labor.
- The petitioner attended the board meetings by the
authority given to him by the Secretary of Labor to sit as
his representative. If it were not for such designation, the
petitioner would not have been in the Board at all.

RULING: The petitioner is, indeed, not entitled to receive a per diem for his
attendance at board meetings during his tenure as member of the Board of
Director of the PEZA.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed