Case Digest (G.R. No. 103578)
Facts:
The case involves Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde, who served as the Presiding Judge of Branch LXXX of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila. He submitted a courtesy resignation that was accepted on January 13, 1987, and subsequently applied for retirement under Republic Act No. 910, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438. The Supreme Court approved his retirement application on July 11, 1989. In calculating his retirement benefits, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) included a lump sum of P240,000.00, which represented five years of a monthly allowance of P4,000.00 that he had received from the Municipality of Muntinlupa during his tenure. This amount was to be charged to the municipality's funds, as per Section 30 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 866, contingent on the availability of funds.
On April 16, 1990, the Sangguniang Bayan of Muntinlupa passed Resolution No. 90-145, appropriating the P240,000.00 for Allarde. However, the Metro Manila...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 103578)
Facts:
Petitioner's Position and Retirement:
- Petitioner Rodolfo T. Allarde was the Presiding Judge of Branch LXXX, Metropolitan Trial Court in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila.
- His courtesy resignation was accepted on January 13, 1987, and he applied for retirement under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438.
Retirement Benefits Claim:
- The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) included a P240,000.00 lump sum in his retirement pay, representing the five-year aggregate of a P4,000.00 monthly allowance he received from the Municipality of Muntinlupa during his tenure.
- This lump sum was to be charged to the municipality's funds under Section 30 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 866, subject to fund availability.
Municipal Resolution and Denial:
- On April 16, 1990, the Sangguniang Bayan of Muntinlupa passed Resolution No. 90-145, appropriating P240,000.00 for the petitioner.
- However, the Metro Manila Authority denied the claim, citing the Commission on Audit (COA) as the final authority on money claims against the government.
COA Decisions:
- On April 4, 1991, petitioner filed his claim with the COA.
- COA Decision No. 1877 (June 5, 1991) denied the claim.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but COA Decision No. 1983 (November 5, 1991) reiterated the denial.
- A second reconsideration was also denied in COA Decision No. 2159 (January 27, 1992).
Nature of the Allowance:
- The P4,000.00 monthly allowance was described as reimbursement for expenses incurred while performing judicial duties, as evidenced by disbursement vouchers.
Issue:
- Whether the P4,000.00 monthly allowance received by the petitioner from the Municipality of Muntinlupa should be included in the computation of his retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438.
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COA's decision.
- The P4,000.00 monthly allowance was not included in the computation of the petitioner's retirement benefits.
Ratio:
Statutory Construction:
- Section 3 of Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438, explicitly limits the computation of retirement benefits to the "highest monthly salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, living, and representation allowances."
- The principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius applies: the inclusion of specific allowances excludes all others.
Nature of the Allowance:
- The P4,000.00 allowance was reimbursable in nature, as evidenced by the petitioner's certification that the expenses were incurred while performing his duties.
- Reimbursable allowances are not considered part of the judge's remuneration and cannot be equated with salary or compensation.
Letter of Instruction No. 1418:
- This law authorizes local governments to pay additional allowances to judges but limits the amount and does not treat such allowances as part of the judge's remuneration for retirement purposes.
- The use of the word "may" indicates that the allowance is discretionary and not a matter of right.
Equality and Fairness:
- Including such allowances in retirement benefits would create inequality among judges, as wealthier municipalities could provide more substantial allowances, leading to disparities in retirement benefits.
- The retirement law was not intended to create such inequities.