Case Summary (G.R. No. 188716)
Background of the Case
This case arises from a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Decisions of the COA regarding the disallowance of retirement gratuity payments owed to Ocampo due to her previous retirements from the government. Ocampo served as a Board Member and later as Chairperson of the ERB and received retirement benefits for her first retirement. The COA determined that Ocampo was not entitled to a second set of benefits due to existing laws against double compensation.
Applicable Law
The legal dispute involves the interpretation of Executive Order No. 172 and Republic Act No. 3595, which govern retirement benefits and prohibit receiving double pensions from the same public agency. Key provisions from these laws state the conditions under which retirement benefits are granted, including eligibility based on the completion of terms and limitations on the length of time served.
Events Leading to Disallowance
Ocampo first retired from the ERB in 1998, receiving a lump sum payment of five years’ salary based on her tenure. She then returned to service as Chairperson until the ERB was abolished in 2001, prompting her second retirement claim. State Auditor Monterde issued a Notice of Suspension, questioning the legality of Ocampo’s claim for a second retirement benefit under EO 172, stating she could not receive gratuity for two positions under the same law.
COA's Rulings
In subsequent decisions, the COA upheld the disallowance of Ocampo’s second retirement gratuity and ruled she was only entitled to a pro-rata amount correlating to her time served as Chairperson. The COA reasoned that while retirement benefits are administratively separate for various service terms, they cannot amount to double compensation prohibited by law.
Ocampo's Assertions
Ocampo contended that EO 172 did not expressly forbid a retiree from receiving benefits upon different retirements within the same agency. She argued that the law intended to liberalize provisions for retired officials similar to the Commission on Elections members and sought clarification or exemption from the COA's rulings.
Evaluation of Claims
The analysis of the claims examined whether Ocampo had the legal entitlement to two set benefits from two retirements, which was ultimately determined to be untenable based on the interpretations of RA 3595. It highlighted the absence of provisions that advocate for multiple benefits based on distinct retirements from the same office.
Court's Decision
The court affirmed that Ocampo’s claim was not one of double compensation but rather contingent upon separate retirements that should not entitle her to additional payments. It highlighted COA’s authority to audit expenditures related to
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 188716)
Case Background
- The case is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, in relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Court.
- The petition challenges Decision No. 2008-017 dated February 15, 2008, and Decision No. 2009-038 dated June 1, 2009, by the Commission on Audit (COA).
- The COA sustained Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 2003-021 dated September 3, 2003, which disallowed the payment of retirement gratuity amounting to P1,449,450.48 to Melinda L. Ocampo, who served as a Board Member and Chairperson of the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB).
Petitioner’s Employment History
- Ocampo retired from the National Electrification Administration on March 1, 1996, after 17 years of service, receiving a net gratuity of P358,917.01.
- She commenced her role as a Board Member of the ERB on March 4, 1996.
- After her term expired on June 30, 1998, she retired under Executive Order No. 172, receiving a lump sum for five years and a corresponding monthly pension.
- Ocampo was appointed Chairperson of the ERB on August 25, 1998, and faced the board's abolition on August 15, 2001, due to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9136.
Retirement Claims and Disallowances
- Upon her second retirement, Ocampo's claim for retirement gratuity was endorsed by the then Chairperson of the ERC to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
- A Notice of Suspension was issued by State Auditor IV Nelda R. Monterde, questioning the legality of receiving retirement gratuity twice under the same law (EO 172).
- Chairperson Barin defended the endorsement, arguing there was no basis to def