Case Summary (G.R. No. 103578)
Applicable Law
The case revolves around Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438, which governs the retirement benefits of justices and judges. Specifically, Section 3 of this law stipulates that judges are entitled to a lump sum of gratuity calculated based on their highest monthly salary and transportation, living, and representation allowances at the time of retirement.
Events Leading to the Petition
Upon retiring, Allarde applied for retirement benefits that included a P4,000.00 monthly allowance he had received from the Municipality of Muntinlupa. His application was initially acted upon by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), which included the allowance in his lump sum computation. However, payment was subsequently denied by the Metro Manila Authority, referencing COA's previous determinations that such allowances cannot equate to compensation for retirement benefit calculations.
COA’s Interpretation of the Law
In its decisions dated June 5, 1991, November 5, 1991, and January 27, 1992, the COA reiterated that the allowances in question were expenses, not in the nature of salary or compensation. COA highlighted that under Section 3 of Republic Act 910, only specific allowances (transportation, living, and representation) are appropriately includable in the computation of retirement benefits. The principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius applied here, indicating that if certain allowances are mentioned, others are presumably excluded.
Nature of the Allowance
The COA's analysis found that the P4,000.00 monthly allowance was characterized as a reimbursement for expenses incurred by Allarde while performing his judicial duties rather than a payment constitutive of salary. The COA referenced a disbursement voucher used by Allarde to support the claim, which required him to certify that the expenses were incurred during his duties. This characterization reaffirmed that the allowance was non-commutable in nature, falling outside the purview of what is classified as acceptable for the computation of retirement benefits.
Implications of Including the Allowance
The legal opinion from the Solicitor General cautioned against including such allowances in retirement computations. It emphasized that such a policy could lead to significant inequities among judges, depending on the financial capabilities of their respective municipalities. If allowances were included,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 103578)
Case Overview
- Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Case Number: G.R. No. 103578
- Date of Decision: January 29, 1993
- Petitioner: Rodolfo T. Allarde, Presiding Judge of Branch LXXX, Metropolitan Trial Court, Muntinlupa
- Respondents: The Commission on Audit (COA) and the Municipal Treasurer of Muntinlupa
- Nature of Petition: Petition for certiorari and/or mandamus to annul the COA's decisions denying the inclusion of a monthly allowance in retirement benefits.
Background Facts
- Rodolfo T. Allarde served as the Presiding Judge until he accepted a courtesy resignation on January 13, 1987.
- He applied for retirement under Republic Act No. 910, amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438, which was approved by the court on July 11, 1989.
- The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) computed his retirement pay, including a lump sum of ₱240,000.00, equivalent to five years of a monthly allowance of ₱4,000.00.
- The Sangguniang Bayan of Muntinlupa appropriated the amount, but the Metro Manila Authority denied the claim, stating COA's ruling indicated that such allowances were not to be equated with compensation for retirement benefits.
Procedural History
- On April 4, 1991, Allarde filed a claim with the COA.
- The COA issued Decision No. 1877 on June 5, 1991, denying his claim.
- Following a Memorandum/Motion for Reconsideration, COA issued Decision No. 1983 on November 5, 1991, maintaining the denial.
- A second reconsideration request resulted in Decision No. 2159 on January 27, 1992, again denying the claim.
- Allarde subsequently filed a petition for review with the Sup