EN BANC
A.M. No. 11238-Ret., August 18, 2015
IN RE: EXPIRATION OF FIXED TERM OF OFFICE OF ATTY. SAADUDDIN A. ALAUYA, OFFICE OF THE JURISCONSULT, ZAMBOANGA CITY
R E S O L U T I O N
VELASCO JR., J.:
Before the Court is an earnest request of Atty. Saaduddin A. Alauya for payment, pursuant to Section 3, Republic Act No. (RA) 910,1 as amended,2 for a lifetime monthly pension.
On August 12, 1996, then President Fidel V. Ramos appointed Atty. Alauya as Jurisconsult in Islamic Law for a term of seven (7) years.3 Prior to this appointment, Atty. Alauya had rendered government service in the following capacities: as Municipal Trial Court judge of Bubong, Lanao del Sur for a little over ten (10) years, or from March 16, 1971 to April 29, 1981; as professor of the Mindanao State University from March 1983 to November 1987; as vice-governor of Lanao del Sur from March 1988 to March 1992, followed by his March 1, 1994 to March 20, 1995 stint as Chairman of the Code of Commission on Muslim Laws-ARMM.4redarclaw
On August 22, 1996, Atty. Alauya took his oath of office and then proceeded to discharge the functions of a Jurisconsult, with station in Zamboanga City, until his term of office expired on August 20, 2003.5 Earlier, however, he filed an application for retirement, indicating therein his intention to retire under the provisions of RA 910.6 As of August 20, 2003, the then 65-year-old Atty. Alauya had, in all, a total of a little over 33 years of government service behind him, the last seven (7) of which served as Jurisconsult. In terms then of the requirements on age and length of service in government, Atty. Alauya was qualified to retire under Section 17 of that law, as amended. 8redarclaw
On the postulate that Sec. 1 of RA 910 applies only to justices or judges, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), per its Memorandum to the then Chief Justice dated August 6, 2003, recommended the denial of Atty. Alauya’s application to so retire under that law. Before Atty. Alauya’s retirement papers, as Jurisconsult, could be completely processed, however, the Court en banc, by Resolution dated February 3, 2004, conferred upon him the rank and privileges of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge effective October 1996.9 And in another en banc Resolution of March 2, 2004, the Court resolved to “(a) allow xxx Alauya to retire under [R.A. 910]; (b) direct the Financial Management Office, [OCA] to compute [and release his] retirement benefits based on the salary he was receiving at the time of his retirement [subject to the withholding of the amount expended in his travel to Saudi Arabia] and (c) [d]eclare that “henceforth, the Jurisconsult shall have the rank, salary and privileges of a Judge of the [RTC].”10redarclaw
In a letter of April 15, 2008,11 Atty. Alauya reminded the Court that he was allowed to and did retire on August 21, 2003 under RA 910 – and thus was entitled to a lifetime monthly pension after August 2008, or five years after his retirement.12 Hence, this request.
In its Resolution dated December 16, 2008, the Court, in light of and citing its earlier Resolution13 in A.M. No. 11838-Ret. (Re: Request of Retired Deputy Court Administrator [DCA] Bernardo T. Ponferrada for Automatic Adjustment of His Retirement Benefits to Include Special Allowance granted under [RA] No. 9227), denied Atty. Alauya’s above request.14redarclaw
From the above adverse action, as subsequently reiterated,15 Atty. Alauya repeatedly sought reconsideration, the latest via a letter of January 21, 2014, which the Court referred to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.16redarclaw
Owing to the Court’s previous denial resolutions, the OCA at first urged the denial of the desired reconsideration, but later changed its earlier stance and, this time, recommended the approval of Atty. Alauya’s request for a lifetime monthly pension, for reasons detailed in a Memorandum dated June 17, 2014.17 In it, the OCA draws particular attention to the reality that Court officials with judicial ranks have retired under RA 910 and have received or are now receiving lifetime monthly pensions.18 The OCA also pushes for a revisit of the Court’s underlying December 16, 2008 action denying Atty. Alauya’s present request on the basis of its Ponferrada ruling in A.M. No. 11838-(Ret) denying retired DCA Ponferrada’s request for automatic adjustment of his retirement benefits.
The recommendation of the OCA is well-taken, as shall be explained hereunder, but first some basic premises: (1) The Court has, by resolution, granted judicial ranks and privileges to certain court officials not exercising judicial functions; (2) The Muslim Code (PD 1083) which created the Office of the Jurisconsult does not provide for retirement benefits for a Jurisconsult; (3) The administrative supervision of the Court19 over the Office of the Jurisconsult has been delegated to the OCA;20 and (4) A jurisconsult is neither a Justice or a judge in the Judiciary.
As earlier recited, the Court, in its February 3, 2004 Resolution, accorded Atty. Alauya the “rank and privileges” of a judge of the RTC. Thereafter, in a March 2, 2004 Resolution, it allowed Atty. Alauya to retire under RA 910, as amended by RA 5095, Section 1 of which states that:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Sec. 1. When a Justice of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, [or] a judge of [the regional trial court] xxx who has rendered at least twenty (20) years of service in the judiciary or in any other branch of the Government, or in both (a) retires for having attained the age of seventy years, or resigns by reason of his incapacity to discharge the duties of his office, he shall receive during the residue of his natural life … the salary xxxx And when a justice of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, xxx [or] a judge of [the regional trial court], xxx or a city or municipal judge has attained the age of sixty years and has rendered at least twenty years service in the Government, the last five of which shall have been continuously rendered in the judiciary, he shall likewise be entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his/her natural life also in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary he was then receiving. (Emphasis supplied and words in brackets added.)
Section 3. Upon retirement, a justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals or a judge of the [RTC] xxx shall be automatically entitled to a lump-sum payment of five-years salary based upon the highest annual salary that said justice or judge has received and thereafter, upon survival after the expiration of this period of five years, to a further annuity payable monthly during the residue of his natural life equivalent to the amount of the monthly salary he was receiving on the date of his retirement.
Retirement laws, in particular, are liberally construed in favor of the retiree because their objective is to provide for the retiree’s sustenance and, hopefully, even comfort, when he no longer has the capability to earn a livelihood. The liberal approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes of the law in order that efficiency, security, and well-being of government employees may be enhanced. Indeed, retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve their humanitarian purpose.
Sec. 3-A. In case the salary of Justices of the Supreme Court or of the [CA] is increased or decreased, such increased or decreased salary, shall for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the salary or the retirement pension which a Justice who as of June 12, [1954] had ceased to be such to accept another position in the Government or who retired at the time of his cessation in office xxx [.]
Endnotes:
1 AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETIREMENT OF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS HEREOF BY THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND TO REPEAL COMMONWEALTH ACT [536].
2 By RA Nos. 1057, 1797, 2614, 5095, 9227, 9946 and PD No. 1438.
3Rollo, p. 22.
4 Id. at 4.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 23.
7 Sec. 1 of RA 910, as amended by RA 5095, infra, requires a minimum service requirement of 20 years, the last 5 years of which to have been served continuously in the judiciary.
8 RA 9946, approved on January 13, 2010, has since reduced the length of service requirement under RA 910, as amended, from twenty (20) years to fifteen (15) to be entitled to the retirement benefits with lifetime monthly person or annuity.
9 Supra note 3 at 49.
10 Id. at 111.
11 Id. at 133.
12 As amended by RA 4627, Sec. 3 of RA 910, as amended, provides that upon retirement, a Justice of the Supreme Court, of the CA or a Judge of the CFI, among other judges, shall be “automatically entitled to a lump-sum payment of five years’ salary based upon the last annual salary that said Justice or Judge was receiving at the time of this retirement and thereafter upon survival after the expiration of this period of five years, to a further annuity equivalent to the amount of the monthly salary he was receiving on the date of his retirement.”
13 Dated August 30, 2005, as reiterated in a Resolution dated December 9, 2008.
14 Supra note 3 at 190; reiterated in a Resolution dated March 17, 2009, supra at 196-197.
15 Per Resolutions dated March 17, 2009 (Id. at 196-197) and July 14, 2009 (Id. at 211), respectively.
16 Supra note 3 at 281; in a Resolution dated January 28, 2014.
17 Id. at 429-434.
18 As of April 2, 2012, the following SC officials with judicial rank retired under RA 910 and are now receiving their monthly pension: former court administrators Alfredo Benipayo and Christopher O. Lock, former DCAs Eutropio Migrino, Juanito Bernard and Reynaldo Suarez; former ACA Ismael Khan, division or deputy clerks of court Lourdes Ramirez, Adelaida Baumann, Erlinda Verzosa, Virginia Soriano Tomasita Dris, Julieta Carreon and Teresita Dimaisip and Director IV Celso Gabalones.
19 Art. 164 of Muslim Code provides: (2) The office of the Jurisconsult shall be under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines xxx.
20 Per Administrative Circular 1-98, dated January 27, 1998.
21Re: Request of (Ret.) Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban for Recomputation of His Creditable Service for the Purpose of Recomputing His Retirement Benefits, A.M. No. 10-9-15-SC, February 12, 2013, 690 SCRA 242, 259.
22 Re: Ruperto G. Martin, A.M. No. 747-Ret., July 13, 1990, 187 SCRA 477, 483.
23 Tantuico, Jr. v. Domingo, G.R. No. 96422, February 28, 1994, 230 SCRA 391.
24 A.M. No. 14155-Ret., November 19, 2013, 709 SCRA 603.
25 Supra note 3 at 432.
26 At age 65, the compulsory retirement age for government employees in the Civil Service.
27 Supra note 18. The list should now include Atty. Ma. Piedad Ferrer Campaña, DCC and reporter and DCA Ponferrada, among other SC officials.
28 Letter to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno dated 21 April 2009, reiterated in another letter to the Court dated January 21, 2014.
29 Under PD 828, the Deputy Court Administrator shall have the same rank, privileges and compensation equivalent to an Associate Justice of the CA.
30 Section 2 of RA 9227 reads: “SEC 2. Grant of Special Allowances. – All justices, judges and all other positions in the judiciary with the equivalent rank of justices of the [CA] and judges of the [RTC] as authorized under existing laws shall be granted special allowances equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the basic monthly salary specified for their respective salary grades under [RA] 6758, as amended xxx.”
31 Supra note 3 at 316-324.
32 Id. at 319.
33 Supra note 8.
34 Sec. 4 Two (2) new sections are hereby inserted in [RA] 910, as amended, to read as Section 3-A and Section 3-B.
“Sec. 3-A. All pension benefits of retired members of the Judiciary shall be automatically increased whenever there is an increase in the salary of the same position from which he/shall retired.”
“Sec. 3-B The benefits under this Act shall be granted to all those who have retired prior to the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the benefits shall be applicable only to members of the Judiciary: Provided further, That the benefits to be granted shall be prospective.”