G.R. No. 195842 - Reblora vs. Armed Forces of the Philippines

The petitioner, Roberto B. Reblora, is a retired Captain of the Philippine Navy, born on 22 May 1944.
Prior to his military service, he rendered civilian government service as a Barrio Development Worker at the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) from 6 January 1969 to 20 July 1974.

The petitioner entered military service as a Probationary Ensign on 21 May 1973 and was called to active duty effective 26 August 1974.
On 25 January 1996, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) officially confirmed the incorporation of his previous civilian government service at the DILG with his length of active military service pursuant to Section 3 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1638, as amended by PD No. 1650.

At age 59, on 22 May 2003, after 34 years of active service, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the military by virtue of General Order No. 142; he was then ranked as a Commander.
After retirement, he chose to avail himself of the monthly retirement pay option with the alternative of receiving in advance a three-year lump sum based on Section 17 of PD No. 1638, as amended.
The AFP granted his retirement benefit claim by computing his service as 30 years (excluding his four-year-plus civilian stint at the DILG) and disbursing an advance lump sum of ₱722,297.16.

The petitioner contested the AFP’s computation, arguing that his four years and five months of prior civilian service at the DILG should be included, thus totaling 34 years of active service.
He claimed that the AFP’s method was deficient and that he was entitled to an additional retirement benefit amounting to ₱135,991.81.

On 20 January 2010, the COA rendered a decision denying the additional benefit claim by stating that while the petitioner’s civilian service should be included, his compulsory retirement should have been deemed effective on 22 May 2000—not in 2003—since by that date he had reached 56 years of age with a total of 31 years in active service.
The COA computed his benefits based on this earlier retirement date, concluding that the petitioner was overpaid by ₱77,807.16.
Even after a motion for reconsideration, the COA reaffirmed its resolution on 31 January 2011.
Dissatisfied, the petitioner sought review from the Supreme Court through a petition under Rule 45.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for additional retirement benefit based on his four years and five months of civilian service prior to active military service should be recognized in computing his total length of active service under PD No. 1638 as amended.

The issue pivots on the proper interpretation of “active service” which includes both military and certain civilian services as defined in Section 3 of PD No. 1638.

Whether the AFP’s computation, which ignored the petitioner’s civilian service in determining the retirement benefit, was erroneous.

The petitioner argues that excluding his full period of service results in an underpayment of his rightful retirement benefits.

Whether the COA erred in its determination to treat the petitioner as having been compulsorily retired effective 22 May 2000 instead of 22 May 2003.

This issue involves interpreting the compulsory retirement scheme dictated by Section 5(a) of PD No. 1638, particularly considering the inclusion of prior civilian service.

Whether the petition is the proper remedy for challenging the COA’s decision.

The petitioner filed his appeal under Rule 45, but the proper mode of review of COA decisions is generally through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65.