Title
Bartulata vs. Peralta, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. L-23155
Decision Date
Sep 9, 1974
Rufino Bartulata, a WWII guerrilla officer, contested his retirement rank. The Supreme Court ruled he is entitled to retire as a second lieutenant, rejecting reliance on revised rosters.
mandamus
retirement
second lieutenant
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23155)

Factual Background

The evidence established that Bartulata began military service on January 15, 1924 upon his enlistment in the Philippine Constabulary. When the Pacific War broke out in 1941, he held the rank of sergeant in the Philippine Constabulary. After the order for surrender was issued by the high command of the USAFFE, Bartulata refused to surrender and instead joined the 108th Infantry, 10th Military District, a guerrilla organization operating in Mindanao.

This guerrilla outfit was recognized on February 13, 1943 by the Headquarters, Philippine Ryukyus Command of the United States Armed Forces, and the recognition was later revised to take effect as of September 16, 1942. While serving with the 108th Infantry, Bartulata was promoted to third lieutenant effective November 1, 1942, and to second lieutenant effective April 1, 1943. His name, rank, and serial number (O-24220 PA) appeared in the Roster of Reserve Officers in the Headquarters, Mindanao Zone Military Police Command, Philippine Army, pursuant to General Order No. 358 dated June 28, 1946.

After the war, Bartulata continued to render service under the postwar Philippine Army while still holding the rank of 2nd Lieutenant. He was assigned as Junior Officer of the 62nd Military Police Command (PA). As second lieutenant, he received salaries and allowances and was permitted to wear the required uniform. His services ended when he was honorably discharged, effective January 31, 1947, with the rank of second lieutenant.

Retirement Application and Denial of Rank Readjustment

On September 1, 1956, Bartulata applied for retirement under Republic Act No. 340, as amended. Since he had rendered more than twenty-five years of continuous military service, the application was approved. His retirement was officially announced in paragraph 13, Special Order No. 126 of General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines dated December 19, 1957, retiring him with the rank of Staff Sergeant effective January 31, 1947, the date he was separated from the service.

Bartulata repeatedly requested readjustment of his retirement rank to second lieutenant, but the request was denied by General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, and by the Secretary of National Defense, on the ground that his name did not appear in the approved reconstructed roster of his guerrilla unit. Respondents treated the absence of his name from that roster as “conclusive” that his service was not recognized or that the recognition of his guerrilla status had been revoked.

Proceedings in the Trial Court and Basis of Dismissal

Bartulata sought relief from the Court of First Instance. Based on a stipulation of facts and admitted documents, the trial court dismissed the petition for mandamus. The dismissal rested on the finding that Bartulata was neither a recognized guerrilla nor a reserve officer.

On appeal, Bartulata insisted that he met the qualifications for retirement under Republic Act No. 340, as amended, and that the sole disputed issue was the proper retirement rank. He argued that he should be retired as second lieutenant, contending that he was a recognized guerrilla officer because of the recognition of the 108th Infantry, 10th Military District and because he was a reserve officer entitled to the rank of second lieutenant under Executive Order No. 21 issued on October 28, 1944 by President Sergio Osmeña.

The Parties’ Contentions

Bartulata relied on Executive Order No. 21, which declared that all persons actively serving in recognized military forces in the Philippines were considered to be on active service in the Philippine Army, confirmed temporary grades and ranks, fixed the effective date of rank for commissioned officers as the date of appointment or promotion by the commander of recognized military forces, and defined a “recognized military force” as one under a commander appointed, designated, or recognized by the commander-in-chief, Southwest Pacific Area.

Respondents admitted the applicability of the guerrilla context in the abstract but contended that the executive order was not self-executory. They asserted that the benefits under it could be claimed only by those whose claims were duly verified and whose names were included in the roster of recognized guerrillas. Since Bartulata’s name allegedly did not appear in the revised roster of recognized guerrillas for his unit, respondents argued that he was an unrecognized guerrilla and that officially he did not serve under the military force.

Respondents anchored this posture on the same theory advanced in Ramiro Aragon vs. Hon. Macario Peralta, Jr., et al., where the Court previously assessed the evidentiary force of the revised roster of recognized guerrillas.

Controlling Doctrine from Ramiro Aragon vs. Hon. Macario Peralta, Jr.

In Ramiro Aragon vs. Hon. Macario Peralta, Jr., et al. (G.R. No. L-21390, November 18, 1967; 21 SCRA 937), the Court rejected the theory that the revised roster alone determined recognition. The Court held that, assuming roster entries reflected official acts of duly authorized public officers, such entries were merely prima facie evidence of the facts stated. The revised roster was not treated as the sole and exclusive evidence of recognition. The Court further held that where it was shown by other material and relevant proof that recognition existed, the roster must yield to the initial roster and other evidence of wartime service and recognition, particularly in cases involving discrepancies between initial and revised rosters.

Applying that same principle, the Court in the present case treated respondents’ approach as untenable.

Ruling on the Merits: Recognition of Guerrilla Services and Rank

The Court held that the Philippine Government recognized not only Bartulata’s wartime and post-liberation services in the Army but also his rank as second lieutenant. The Court identified multiple circumstances reflecting recognition: first, his inclusion in the initial roster of the 108th Infantry, 10th Military District; second, his entitlement to and receipt of backpay for services rendered as second lieutenant from April 1, 1943 to May 15, 1945; third, his payment of salaries and allowances as second lieutenant; fourth, his allowance to wear the uniform as an officer of that rank; and fifth, his honorably discharge on January 31, 1947 as second lieutenant.

The Court also considered the retirement record as confirming recognition. In Special Orders No. 126, the approval of Bartulata’s retirement reflected completion of twenty-three years and fifteen days of service. Moreover, in the stipulation of facts, respondents admitted that Bartulata rendered more than twenty-three years of continuous military service. The Court computed that period to cover from January 15, 1924 up to January 30, 1947, because the records did not show further military service after separation.

The Court reasoned that if respondents’ position were correct—that Bartulata did not serve under the 108th Infantry or that his guerrilla status was revoked—then his wartime service from October 1, 1942 to May 15, 1945 could not have been included in the computation of his military service. The inclusion of that period demonstrated that his guerrilla services with the only guerrilla outfit he was shown and known to have served in were duly recognized by Philippine authorities.

The Court emphasized that the fact that Bartulata’s name might not be included in the roster of recognized guerrillas kept by United States authorities should not control. What mattered were Philippine Government records of his military activities, including his guerrilla service during World War II.

Accordingly, the Court held that, based on the evidence, Bartulata was entitled to all the rights, benefits, and privileges due a recognized guerrilla, including retirement with the rank of second lieutenant, which was the rank confirmed by the executive order and the rank he was hol

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms