LEGAL OPINION RE PHILHEALTH PREMIUM CONTRIBUTION

Republic of the Philippines
Province of South Cotabato
City of Koronadal
OFFICE OF THE CITY LEGAL OFFICER


LEGAL OPINION NO. __________
DATE : 15 January 2013

TO : JULIETA R. GASTALA, MPA
City Budget Officer
This City

RE : PHILHEALTH PREMIUM CONTRIBUTION


Madam:
The issue being presented in your query is: Which should be followed as regards the premium contributions to be remitted by the LGU to PhilHealth, the PhilHealth Circular No. 011- S-2012 (as superseded by PhilHealth Circular No. 057, s-2012) or the DBM Circular Letter No. 2012-12, dated 29 June 2012?

This issue boils down into the question as to who has the authority to fix the Philhealth premium contribution. Pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7875, as amended by Republic Act No. 9241, state:

xxx xxx xxx

“Section 14. Creation and Nature of the Corporation. – There is hereby created a Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, which shall have the status of a tax-exempt government corporation attached to the Department of Health for policy coordination and guidance.”

xxx xxx xxx

“Section 16. Powers and Functions. – The Corporation shall have the following powers and functions:

a) to administer the National Health Insurance Program;

b) to formulate and promulgate policies for the sound administration of the Program;

c) to set standards, rules, and regulations necessary to ensure quality of care, appropriate utilization of services, fund viability, member satisfaction, and overall accomplishment of Program objectives;

d) to formulate and implement guidelines on contributions and benefits, cost containment and quality assurance; and health care provider arrangements, payment methods; and referral systems;”

xxx xxx xxx

"SEC. 4. Definition of Terms.-For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall be defined as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

d) Contribution - The amount paid by or in behalf of a member to the Program for coverage, based on salaries or wages in the case of formal sector employees, and on household earnings and assets, in the case of self-employed, or on other criteria as may be defined by the Corporation in accordance with the guiding principles set forth in Article 1 of this Act.

xxx xxx xxx


ARTICLE VII
FINANCING

“Section 28. Contributions. – All members of the Program shall contribute to the Fund, in accordance with a reasonable, equitable and progressive contribution schedule to be determined by the Corporation on the basis of applicable actuarial studies and in accordance with the following guidelines:

a) Formal sector employees and current medicare members and their employers shall continue paying the same monthly contributions as provided for by law until such time that the Corporation shall have determined the contribution schedule mentioned herein: provided, that their monthly contribution shall not exceed three percent (3%) of their respective monthly salaries.

b) Contributions from self-employed members shall be based primarily on household earnings and assets; their total contributions for one year shall not, however, exceed three percent (3%) of their estimated actual net income for the preceding year.

c) Contributions made in behalf of indigent members shall not exceed the minimum contributions set for employed members.

xxx xxx xxx


It cannot be denied that based on the foregoing provisions of the law, the PhilHealth Corporation has the authority to fix the premium contribution that must be remitted by the employers, including the LGU. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM), without any statutory fiat, cannot arrogate unto itself such authority.

The following are the general functions of the DBM:

1. Formulates the overall resource application strategy to match the government’s macro-economic policy;

2. Prepares the medium-term expenditure plan, indicating the programming, prioritization, and financing of capital investment and current operating expenditure requirements of medium-term sectoral development plans;

3. Undertakes the formulation of the annual national budget in a way that ensures the appropriate prioritization and allocation of funds to support the annual program of government;

4. Develops and administers a national accounting system essential to fiscal management and control;

5. Conducts a continuing study of the bureaucracy and assesses as well as makes policy recommendation on its role, size, composition, structure and functions to establish a government bureaucracy imbued with a spirit of public service;

6. Establishes the rules and procedures for the management of government organization resources i.e., physical, manpower and other resources, formulates standards of organizational program performance; and undertakes or provides services in work simplification or streamlining of systems and procedures to improve efficiency and effectiveness in government operations;

7. Conceptualizes and administers the government’s compensation and position classification plan; and

8. Monitors and assesses the physical as well as the financial operations of local government units and government-owned and/or – controlled corporations.

While DBM is mandated under Executive Order No. 25, dated April 25, 1936, and subsequent issuances to promote the sound, efficient and effective management and utilization of government resources (i.e., technological, manpower, physical and financial) as instrument in the achievement of national socioeconomic and political development goals, this cannot be construed as to include the power or authority to alter or modify the acts of the PhilHealth Corporation. There is nothing in the law that empowers the DBM to review the decisions of the Corporation. Neither is there any provision of law which requires the prior approval by DBM before any increase in premium can be implemented by PhilHealth. It is worthy to note that even the DBM Circular letters make reference to the PhilHealth Circulars.

One cannot simply brush aside the possible repercussions to the Philhealth members and to the employer LGU should their benefits be withheld in the future due to under-remittance.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned is of the opinion that the PhiliHealth Circular should prevail.

I hope this opinion could be of help to the LGU’s endeavors.



Yours truly,




ATTY. EUFEMIO A. SIMTIM, JR.
City Legal Officer
cc:
CMO

LEGAL OPINION RE CONFLICTING CLAIMS IN THE KORONADAL CITY PUBLIC MARKET [STALL NO. 13]

Republic of the Philippines
Province of South Cotabato
City of Koronadal
OFFICE OF THE CITY LEGAL OFFICER
Tel No. (083) 228-1742

LEGAL OPINION NO. ________

DATE : 15 November 2013


TO : CYRUS JOSE J. URBANO, CPA, MBA
City Administrator

RE : As Stated
________________________________________________________

Kanami Koronadal!

This is with reference to your letter dated 12 November 2013 requesting for a legal opinion apropos the letter of Atty. Raul O. Tolentino asking for the cancellation/revocation of the lease contract which was entered into by John Abella with the City Government of Koronadal.

It appears that on 14 January 2013, a Contract of Lease was entered into between the City Government of Koronadal, as the lessor and John Abella, as the lessee, covering Stall No. 13, Supermarket Building 1, Ground Floor of the City Public Market of this City. The lease has duration of two (2) years renewable upon its expiration unless revoked in accordance with the Local Revenue Code of Koronadal City. However, it appears from the record of the Licensing Office that Agencia Niña, Inc. under the business name, Golden Drug Store had been actually occupying the leased subject property.

Based on the foregoing facts, it can be gleaned that John Abella subleased the said property to the Agencia Niña, Inc., /Golden Drug Store.

However, note must be taken that the aforementioned contract specifically prohibits the subleasing of the above-mentioned property to any third person which provides:

x x x

“6. That it shall be inviolable [sic] violation of this contract to sublease, mortgage, sell, transfer or in any manner allow people to conduct business in the said stall/room other than the lessee himself/herself”

x x x

Also, the Civil Code of the Philippines particularly Article 1649 expressly provides, inter alia, that:

x x x

Art. 1649. The lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary."

x x x

Applying the above provisions to the case under consideration, it follows that the subleasing could not have been valid there being no proof that the City Government of Koronadal, the lessor, gave its express consent to the substitution of Agencia Niña, Inc.,/Golden Drug Store in lieu of John Abella as lessee. In view of such violation of the provision of the lease contract or for failure to comply with the terms/ conditions thereof, the lessor has a right to revoke/cancel/terminate the contract of lease with the lessee John Abella and to take physical possession of the subject property.

Section 5, B.04. Administrative Provisions.- of the City Market Ordinance provides that:

x x x

“Dummies, sublease of stalls/rooms- In any case the person registered to be the holder or lessee of a stall room/room in the public market, is found to be not the same person who is actually occupying said stall/room, the lease of such stall/room shall be cancelled, if upon investigation such stall holder shall be found to have subleased his stall/room to another person or to have connived with such person so that the latter may for any reason, be able to occupy the said stall.”

x x x

Nonetheless, it does not follow that the actual occupant Agencia Niña, Inc., /Golden Drug Store be permitted or be placed as lessee.

Anent thereto, the undersigned, consequently, recommend that the subject property be DECLARED VACANT AND REOPENED FOR APPLICATION FOR LEASE.

Please be guided accordingly.



In public service,




ATTY. EUFEMIO A. SIMTIM, JR., REA, REB
City Legal Officer




JACQUELINE MAE ESTORNINOS-SAQUILABON, LLB
Legal Assistant II


c.c
BPLS
CMO
City Market Committee

LEGAL OPINION RE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF STALLHOLDERS IN THE KORONADAL CITY PUBLIC MARKET [STALL NO. 22]

Republic of the Philippines
Province of South Cotabato
City of Koronadal
OFFICE OF THE CITY LEGAL OFFICER
Tel No. (083) 228-1742

LEGAL OPINION NO. ________


DATE : 20 November 2013


TO : CYRUS JOSE J. URBANO, MPA
City Administrator
City Market Committee, Chair

SUBJECT : As Stated

__________________________________________________


Kanami Koronadal!

Subject of this Opinion is the query of herein parties, Mrs. Clarita M. Cuaresma and her son Mr. Leslie C. Lu seeking the resolution of their contest apropos the lawful leasehold right of Stall No. 22, Supermart Building Shed 2, Ground floor of the City of Koronadal Public Market lodged before the City Market Committee.

As culled from the records of the City Treasurer and Office of the Market Supervisor, and the minutes of the meetings previously called for by the Market Committee, hereunder are the uncontroverted factual antecedents:

Herein parties are Mrs. Clarita M. Cuaresma lessee of Stall No. 22 and Mr. Leslie C. Lu lessee of Stall No. 23, both in the Supermart Building 2, Ground Floor of the City of Koronadal. Both stalls are being occupied as a compact stall removing the division between them in which their family business, the Liberty Bakeshop, is situated. Both parties admit that at the onset of the business, Mrs. Cuaresma was the sole proprietor of the bakery.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Cuaresma left their business to her sister and pursued another course elsewhere. However, due to the prodding of her son, Mr. Lu, she had a change of heart and decided to instead leave the business to him, inversely promising that he will send his brother to school while his mother is away.

Pursuantly, Mr. Lu managed Liberty Bakeshop and paid the rentals and surcharges for Stall Nos. 22 and 23 in the name of Mrs. Cuaresma, in her absence.

As evidenced by Official Receipts issued by the Treasurer’s Office, rentals and surcharges were paid either by Mrs. Cuaresma or paid by Mr. Lu in her name. Also, the latest Lease Contract between the City Government and Mrs. Cuaresma duly signed by her issued on 30 August 2006 which took effect on January 2006 until December 2007. Sans the Contract of Lease from 2008 up to present, Stall No. 22 remained under the name of Mrs. Cuaresma.

Herein parties assert opposing claims of leasehold rights over Stall No. 22. In particular, Mrs. Cuaresma clung to her claim being the Lessee by virtue of the Lease Contract and as appearing in the Official Receipts of the Treasurer’s Office. On the contrary, Mr. Lu based his claim on his payment of rentals and surcharges for several times during the absence of his mother.

This office opines that Mr. Lu failed in his burden of clearly and unequivocally proving his claim of leasehold rights on the subject stall. The fact of his payment of the rentals and surcharges on the subject stall during the absence of Mrs. Cuaresma cannot mean that the latter relinquished her leasehold thereto. She may have been remiss in her obligation to personally maintain or conduct business in the said stall but this cannot belie the fact that the bakery was family-owned.

In addition, worthy of note is the records of the Office of the Treasurer which accepted payments and issued receipts for the stall in the name of Mrs. Cuaresma. Payment of Mr. Lu on several occasions is bereft of indicia of Mrs. Cuaresma’s intent to surrender or abandon said stall in favor of Mr. Lu. Had that been the case, proper procedures should have been observed.

Reason dictates that the acceptance of payments by the City Government from Mr. Lu in the name of his mother is recognition on our part that the legitimate lessee of the contested stall is Mrs. Cuaresma sans a contract of lease. Failure of Mr. Lu to show proof that he is the lessee of the stall defeats his challenge. He cannot by the mere fact of his payment of the rentals and surcharge validly claim leasehold on the stall.

Herein parties cannot undermine the proscriptions of the Local Tax Ordinance on dummy and subleasing of stalls and the lease of more than one stall in the public market.

Ergo, this office respectfully opines that Mrs. Clarita M. Cuaresma is the LEGITIMATE LESSEE OF STALL NO. 22. Further, it is recommended that the stalls of Liberty Bakeshop must be reverted to its original state. Consequently, necessary division must be constructed between Stall Nos. 22 and 23, being leased by separate individuals. This shall also serve as a stern warning to herein parties that said stalls must not be merged to form a single compact stall contrary to the provisions of Lease Contract and market ordinances. Otherwise, the City Government can, motu proprio revoke or cancel the lease and declare the stall of erring stall holders vacant.

Please be guided accordingly.

In public service,



ATTY. EUFEMIO A. SIMTIM, JR., REA, REB
City Legal Officer



MYRA JOY H. LAWI-AN, LLB
Legal Assistant II


c.c
BPLS
CMO
City Market Committee