A motion for reconsideration was filed on the decision rendered by PBB

Secretariat of the Oroquieta City Division based on the following grounds laid by
employee:

1. That only personal cash advances are covered by DepEd No. 53, S. 2017
and that the unliquidated amount wasn’t his personal but was allocated
and used for a regional activity; and
2. That the alleged impossibility to liquidate the said amount within the
prescribed amount requires consideration.

The abovementioned contentions are untenable.

25. An official or employee who failed to liquidate within the reglementary

period the Cash Advances received in FY 2016 as required by the
Commission of Audit (COA) shall not be entitled to grant of PBB.

The statement is clear and simple to understand.

Number 25 of the IRR covers “an employee who failed to liquidate within the
reglementary period the cash advances received...” The IRR does not qualify
whether the cash advances received were used for personal or work-related
activities. When the IRR does not distinguish, neither should we distinguish.
Employee must also not confuse “Individual Eligibility” with “Personal liability”
as the two are different. An employee is individually eligible to receive PBB upon
satisfaction of all the qualifications like that of having liquidated cash advances
received, regardless of his personal liability on the matter. The employee cannot
give a different interpretation on the rule for legal/statutory construction
requires that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the
context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be interpreted together with the
other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.

Moreover, it states that “an employee who fails to liquidate cash advances within
the required period by COA SHALL not be entitled to grant of PBB”. The phrase
makes use of the word “shall” which underscores the mandatory character of the
rule. The term is a word for command and one which has always or which must
be given a compulsory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory.1 A
cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from
any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or
interpretation. There is only room for application.2

Finally, the Secretariat is a mere implementing arm of the government. Its duties
are administrative and ministerial, not judicial. It cannot decide and consider on
its own the acceptability of the employees’ contention on the alleged
impossibility of liquidation of cash advances within the reglementary period. As
it has ben said, dura lex sed lex. The law may be hard to observe or difficult to
obey, but it remains the law and must be therefore followed just the same.

1 Enriquez v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 139303, August 25, 2005

2 Bolos v. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010