Title
Re: Judge Tito G. Gustilo
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1868
Decision Date
Aug 13, 2004
Judge Gustilo sought inclusion of unimplemented Special Allowance tranche in retirement benefits; SC denied, citing R.A. No. 9227's clear terms requiring actual receipt at retirement.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1868)

Petitioner’s Request

In a letter dated May 26, 2004, addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Judge Gustilo requests that the second tranche of the Special Allowance for Judges, as stipulated under Republic Act No. 9227, be included in the computation of his retirement benefits. This second tranche is scheduled for implementation on November 11, 2004, and the Judge argues that, given his retirement is only a month prior, it should be counted in his final benefits.

Legal Framework

Republic Act No. 9227, which took effect on November 11, 2003, provides additional compensation to the judiciary. Specifically, Section 2 mandates the grant of special allowances equivalent to 100% of the basic salary, implemented uniformly over four years in tranches of 25%. Section 5 explicitly states that only allowances actually received at retirement are to be included in the computation of retirement benefits.

Relevant Guidelines

The Court, on March 9, 2004, promulgated guidelines regarding the implementation of these allowances. It indicates that only allowances that have accrued by the time of retirement will be included in benefits computation, emphasizing uniformity in their application.

Historical Context and Precedent

Judge Gustilo notes the precedent of judges who retired in October receiving a December thirteenth month pay. He invokes a policy of leniency historically afforded to retiring judges regarding the inclusion of benefits.

Office of the Court Administrator’s Memorandum

In a memorandum dated June 18, 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended granting Judge Gustilo's request, citing his exemplary service and contributions to court innovations and administration. They argued it would be fair and just to grant him the second tranche.

Chief Attorney’s Report

Despite the recommendation from the OCA, Chief Attorney Edna E. Diño submitted a counter-report on July 15, 2004, advising that the request be denied. She argued that including the yet-to-be-implemented second tranche is inconsistent with Republic Act No. 9227 and the associated guidelines.

Court’s Ruling

The Court ultimately sided with the Chief Attorney, affirming the clear language of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9227 that only allowances that were “actually received” and “already implemented” by the date of retirement could be counted. This rigid interpretation negated any potential for liberal application that may favor Judge Gustilo’s standpoint.

Legislative Intent

Discussions among lawmakers during the enactment of the legislation revea

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.