EN BANC
G.R. No. 207281, March 05, 2019
ELAINE R. ABANTO, NINFA B. ABOTOTO, MAGTANGGOL P. AGUILA, MARIE PAZ F. AGUILA, MERLINDA V. ALCANTARA, REMEGIO S. AMAR, JOSEFINA A. AMPAT, ADRIAN E. ANCHETA, ANDRES P. ANDRADA, DANILO R. ANGELES, JOSEFINA P. ARCE, SALVACION G. ARZADON, JOEL F. ASCAÑO, MA. VICTORIA B. ASETRE, EMILIO I. BACCAY, JESUSA A. BALINGAO, GIL C. BANDILLA, LAURA G. BAQUIRAN, MARLAN G. BARBA, LOURDES M. BEAULAC, EDISON A. BELARMINO, RENE L. BELJERA, DALISAY D. BERNARDO, AUREO B. BILANGEL, JR.,i LUCIBAR G. BODO, MELBA GLORIA M. BUMA-AT, CLARA LANI G. CABABARO, BERNADETTE G.ii CABERTE, EVANGELINE J. CALUB, MA. ROSARIO P. CALUB, SONIA F. CASTEN, JOSE P. CASTRO, AIDA LINA D. CELINO, EMILY A. COLICO, TOBIAS V. COLINA, FRANCISCO R. CRUZ, LILEIZA A. CRUZ, LEROY A. CUEVAS, ANTONIO P. CUSTODIO, SYLVIA G. DACUAN, RITA M. DAGAL, ROSALIER B. DAGONDON, MARCELO S. DANGCALAN,iii OFELIA C. DE GUZMAN, CARINA G. DELA CRUZ, ELIZABETH M. DELA PEÑA, RODOLFO T. DE LEON, DENNIS A. DINO, LETICIA N. DUCUSIN, FRED S. EDANIO, ROSABEL C. ESTEBAN, LEONORA A. FERNANDEZ, MARIETTA F. FERNANDEZ, ROSALIO G. FETALBO, ROGELIO C. FLORES, PURIFICACION G. FRONDOZO, MA. ANA B. FUENTES, MARIETA M. GARCIA, NUMIER T. GO, ROLANDO N. GORDOVEZ, ADELAIDA B. GUANZON, DOMINGO A. HABULAN, CECILIA S. HERMOSURA, CESAR M. JACOB, ESTRELLA E. ICASIANO, MA. LUZ L. JARDENIL, ANICETO K. JAVIER, JR.,iv ZENAIDA D. JOSE, RODELIO L. LABIT, CRISTINA V. LAFUENTE, JANNETTE G. LAGAREJOS, RUFO M. LEDESMA, LOURDES ANNE E. LIAO, ENRIQUETA A. LLORENTE, ALBERTO S. LOPEZ, LEDELINA B. LOVERES, JOSE R. LUMINATE, THELMA V. MACEDA, CLARITO L.v MAGSINO, CEFERINA C. MAKASIAR, NELSON D. MAKASIAR, AMORDELIZA C. MANAMTAM, DANILO A. MANAMTAM,vi LORNA S. MANLAPIG, AIDA D. MANZANO, GETULIO E. MARCOS,vii JUANITA C. MATA, MARILOU S. MATANGUIHAN, CAESAR M. MATIGNAS, NATIVIDAD S. MAUSISA, CONRADO P. MEDINA, GREGORIO M. MICO, JR.,viii EULINIA S. MORALES, LILIAN O. MORALES, GORGONIO T. MORA, BERNARDINO E. OLAYVAR, JR.,ix EDUARDO A. ONG, MARIA LUISA J. PADILLA, CESAR A. PADRIQUE, ROSARIO MELANIE C. PAMA, SOTERO A. PINE, MA. THERESA L. QUIRINO, AURORA A. RADOMES, RICARDO O. RAMIREZ, ADELA P. RARA, EDUARDO E. REYES, AIDA A. RIVERA, EDITHA P. RIVERA, ANITA C. RIVERO, SUSAN V. RODRIGUEZ, GIL A. ROMERO, ARSENIO V. ROYALES V,x ENRIQUE P. SADIE, DIANA T. SANTIAGO, TERESITA S. SANTIAGO, RICARDO P. SANTILLAN,xi ALMA P. SANTOS, DOROTHY C.xii SANTOS, JUANITO C. SEBASTIAN, IGNACIO C. SERRANO, JOCELYN G. SIONGCO, MA. BELLA L. SORIANO, THELMA C. SUSTENTO,xiii RAUL T. TAASAN, IMELDA L. TAGARAO, RODEL C. TANIÑAS,xiv MA. LIBERTY C. TEC, BENILDA A. TEJADA, NENITA C. TENORIO, GRACE M. TERTE, AME CRIS C. TOLEDO, ERNESTO P. TORPIAS, GRESELDA MARGARITA S. TORRALBA, DANILO S. VELORIA, ALMARIO SJ. VENTURA, EUGENIO O. VERDE, MA. ISABEL H. VERDE, ANNABELLA T. VERGARA, ALBERTO D. VILLARIN, AURITA B. VILLOSO, AND DANIEL C. VINLUAN, PETITIONERS, v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, NAMELY: JOSE A. NUÑEZ, GIL BUENAVENTURA, JUAN KEVIN G. BELMONTE, DANIEL Y. LAOGAN, ALBERTO A. LIM, CECILIO B. LORENZO, AND JOSE LUIS L. VERA, RESPONDENTS.
MARY IRMA D. LARA AND JOSEPHINE JAURIGUE, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION.
G.R. No. 210922, March 05, 2019
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court are two consolidated petitions relating to the validity of the Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) IV-2010 of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). G.R. No. 207281 is a Petition for Mandamus1 filed by 141 former DBP employees (petitioners-retirees) who retired under the ERIP IV-2010 against the DBP Board of Directors (DBP Board); while G.R. No. 210922 is a Petition for Certiorari2 with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction filed by the DBP against the Commission on Audit (COA) questioning the Audit Observation Memorandum and the Notice of Disallowance issued by the latter over the ERIP IV-2006 and 2007.
- OBJECTIVES:
General Objective
The general objective of ERIP IV is to ensure the vitality of the Bank for the next ten (10) years and make it attuned to the continuing advances in banking technology.
SpecIfic Objectives
The specific objectives are:
- to infuse new talents/skills/insights into the Bank through the entry/promotion of younger corps of personnel via a Bank[-]wide succession program[;]
- to enable the Bank to attain cost savings in its personnel budget[; and]
- to create new opportunities for career advancement in the Bank.
- COVERAGE
The ERIP IV shall be open to:
- officials and employees aged 50 or above with at least 15 years of creditable government service as of the date of application[;]
- other officials and employees identified by the Screening Committee who may be displaced as a consequence of realigmnent or streamlining of work processes, regardless of whether or not they meet the age and service requirements of #1 above. Management, through the Sector Heads, shall so advise said officials and employees in writing to apply immediately.7
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Petition is DENIED and COA CGS-A Decision No. 005 dated December 28, 2010 affirming ND No. ERIP-2006-007(03-06) dated May 17, 2007 on the payment of retirement benefits to DBP officials and employees in the total amount of P747,174,594.28 is hereby AFFIRMED.33
Therefore, in case the DBP decides not to move for the reconsideration of the COA Decision dated January 30, 2013, the same will attain finality and become executory. Verily, the DBP may already reinstate the ERIP IV availees to their former positions with payment of back salaries and other benefits including leave credits from the time they were separated from the service until their actual reinstatement. However, if the DBP moves for reconsideration of the COA decision, the reinstatement of the affected employees will depend on the decision of the COA on the Motion for Reconsideration. x x x38
x x x Acting on the Petition x x x, the Court Resolved, without giving due course to the petition, to
(a) REQUIRE the respondent to COMMENT on the petition within ten (10) days from notice hereof; and
(b) ISSUE a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, restraining the respondent from implementing assailed Decision No. 2013-046 dated January 30, 2013, Resolution dated December 6, 2013 and Notice of Disallowance No. ERIP-2006-007 (03-06) dated May 17, 2007 on petitioner's Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) IV.51
1. The Honorable Court [to] resolve the consolidated cases G.R. Nos. 207281 and 210922; and
2. In the event of a decision in favor of DBP in G.R. No. 210922, the parties pray for the Honorable Court to approve the attached Compromise Agreement and that judgment be rendered in accordance therewith, without pronouncement as to the cost of suit.62
1) | Whether COA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disallowing the benefits under DBP's ERIP IV-2003; and |
2) | Whether the petition for mandamus should be granted to compel the DBP Board to release the benefits under ERIP IV-2010. |
A. OBJECTIVES:
General Objective
The general objective of ERIP IV is to ensure the vitality of the Bank for the next ten (10) years and make it attuned to the continuing advances in banking technology.
Specific Objectives
The specific objectives are:
- to infuse new talents/skills/insights into the Bank through the entry/promotion of younger corps of personnel via a Bank[-]wide succession program[;]
- to enable the Bank to attain cost savings in its personnel budget[; and]
- to create new opportunities for career advancement in the Bank.
B. COVERAGE
The ERIP IV shall be open to:
- officials and employees aged 50 or above with at least 15 years of creditable government service as of the date of application[; and]
- other officials and employees identified by the Screening Committee who may be displaced as a consequence of realignment or streamlining of work processes, regardless of whether or not they meet the age and service requirements of #1 above. Management, through the Sector Heads, shall so advise said officials and employees in writing to apply immediately.
C. ERIP IV INCENTIVES
- The basic incentive [is] computed as follows:
Highest Basic Monthly Salary x 1.50 x Length of Gov't. Service
in Gratuity Months (As of date of application) (Factor)
x x x x- A service [a]ward of P4,000.00 per actual year of service in the government
- An additional incentive for availees who choose to retire under RA 66068 (Magic 87) computed as follows:
- Estimated retirement benefit under RA 161669 :
Gratuity Estimate + Premium Refund Estimates (Personal share plus interest and government share without interest).- Less: Lump sum annuity (discounted amount) paid by GSIS under RA 660
- Difference x 150%
x x x x
H. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
x x x x
- The grant of ERIP IV incentives is without prejudice to the retiree's entitlement to:
a) the regular retirement benefit under any of the existing GSIS retirement laws; and
b) the payment of the money value of leave credit (MVLC) balance, if any, under Bank policies.70
It is true that under Section 41(n) ofRepublic Act No. 8291, GSIS is expressly granted the power to adopt a retirement plan and/or financial assistance for its employees, but a closer look at the provision readily shows that this power is not absolute. It is qualified by the words "early," "incentive," and "for the purpose of retirement." The retirement plan must be an early retirement incentive plan and such early retirement incentive plan or financial assistance must be for the purpose of retirement.
According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, "early" means "occurring before the expected or usual time," while "incentive" means "serving to encourage, rouse, or move to action," or "something that constitutes a motive or spur."
It is clear from the foregoing that Section 41(n) of Republic Act No. 8291 contemplates a situation wherein GSIS, due to a reorganization, a streamlining of its organization, or some other circumstance, which calls for the termination of some of its employees, must design a plan to encourage, induce, or motivate these employees, who are not yet qualified for either optional or compulsory retirement under our laws, to instead voluntarily retire. This is the very reason why under the law, the retirement plan to be adopted is in reality an incentive scheme to encourage the employees to retire before their retirement age.74
x x x [The GSIS RFP's] very objective, "[t]o motivate and reward employees for meritorious, faithful, and satisfactory service," contradicts the nature of an early retirement incentive plan, or a financial assistance plan, which involves a substantial amount that is given to motivate employees to retire early. Instead, it falls exactly within the purpose of a retirement benefit, which is a form of reward for an employee's loyalty and lengthy service, in order to help him or her enjoy the remaining years of his life.
Furthermore, to be able to apply for the GSIS RFP, one must be qualified to retire under Republic Act No. 660 or Republic Act No. 8291, or must have previously retired under our existing retirement laws. This only means that the employees covered by the GSIS RFP were those who were already eligible to retire or had already retired. Certainly, this is not included in the scope of "an early retirement incentive plan or financial assistance for the purpose of retirement."
The fact that GSIS changed the name from "Employees Loyalty Incentive Plan" to "Retirement/Financial Plan" does not change its essential nature. A perusal of the plan shows that its purpose is not to encourage GSIS's employees to retire before their retirement age, but to augment the retirement benefits they would receive under our present laws. Without a doubt, the GSIS RFP is a supplementary retirement plan, which is prohibited by the Teves Retirement Law.84
Clearly, an employee who is as young as 50 years old but has served 15 years in the government may avail of the ERIP IV. When the employee leaves the Bank, he is not yet qualified to receive the retirement benefits offered by GSIS. Under R.A. No. 8291, to qualify for retirement, the employee must, not only have rendered at least 15 years of service, he must also be at least 60 years of age upon retirement.
In fact, for the availees of the ERIP IV in the years 2003-2006, i.e., those covered by the Notice of Disallowance, 335 were not yet qualified to retire under the GSIS, 117 of whom are aged 50 years old and below.
x x x x
It is elementary to state that unless one is compelled to retire by reason of compulsory retirement, the decision to retire and when to retire rest[s] in the employee concerned. He or she may continue to work until the law requires him to leave government service.
Even assuming for argument's sake that a few, some[,] or all of the availees of the ERIP IV are eligible to retire under GSIS retirement laws, it does not change the fact that ERIP IV was adopted and implemented to induce them to retire early which otherwise they would not have decided to [do] if they were not offered the incentives.
Unlike under compulsory retirement, the decision to retire under the ERIP IV was voluntary on the part of the employees who were aware that, more than the incentives to be received, their action would promote the objectives that DBP sought to achieve — streamlining, cost-savings, and infusion of young blood.
x x x [T]he ERIP IV induced the employees by way of incentives to retire before they were required to retire compulsorily, i.e., before their expected or usual time for retirement. Indeed, a 55-year old ERIP IV availee could work ten (10) more years in DBP and the latter cannot command him to retire before that time.
Contrary to COA's assertion, the fact that ERIP IV is available to employees eligible to retire under the GSIS retirement laws is not inconsistent with the nature of an early retirement plan. If the ERIP IV's purpose is to encourage DBP employees to retire under GSIS laws earlier than they would have been compelled to in order to achieve DBP's purpose of cost savings and allow the infusion of "young blood", then it is, in fact, an early retirement plan.86
We are, of course, aware that in Laraño v. Commission on Audit, we held that employees, who were separated from the service because of the reorganization of the [MWSS] and Local Waterworks and Utilities Administration (LWUA) pursuant to RA No. 8041, were entitled to both a separation package and retirement benefits.
In Laraño, however, the Early Retirement Incentive Plan submitted to and approved by then President Fidel V. Ramos explicitly provided for a separation package that would be given over and above the existing retirement benefits. Therein lies the fundamental difference. Hence, unlike in this case, there was specific authority for the grant of both separation pay and retirement benefits.92
Even assuming, however, that the [DBP's Special Loan Program (SLP)] constitutes a supplementary retirement plan, RA 4968 [or the Teves Retirement Law] does not apply to the case at bar. The DBP Charter, which took effect on 14 February 1986, expressly authorizes supplementary retirement plans "adopted by and effective in" DBP, thus:SEC. 34. Separation Benefits. — All those who shall retire from the service or are separated therefrom on account of the reorganization of the Bank under the provisions of this Charter shall be entitled to all gratuities and benefits provided for under existing laws and/or supplementary retirement plans adopted by and effective in the Bank: Provided, that any separation benefits and incentives which may be granted by the Bank subsequent to June 1, 1986, which may be in addition to those provided under existing laws and previous retirement programs of the Bank prior to the said date, for those personnel referred to in this section shall be ftmded by the National Government; Provided, further, that, any supplementary retirement plan adopted by the Bank after the effectivity of this Chapter shall require the prior approval of the Minister of Finance.
x x x x
SEC. 37. Repealing Clause. — All acts, executive orders, administrative orders, proclamations, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with any of the provisions of this charter are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. (Italics supplied)
Being a special and later law, the DBP Charter prevails over RA 4968. The DBP originally adopted the SLP in 1983. The Court cannot strike down the SLP now based on RA 4968 in view of the subsequent DBP Charter authorizing the SLP.100
x x x unless the intention to revoke is clear and manifest, the abrogation or repeal of a law cannot be assumed. The repealing clause contained in Republic Act No. 8291 is not an express repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate the statutes that are intended to be repealed. It is actually a clause, which predicated the intended repeal upon the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior laws.
Since Republic Act No. 8291 made no express repeal or abrogation of the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 186 as amended by the Teves Retirement Law, the reliance of the petitioners on its general repealing clause is erroneous. The failure to add a specific repealing clause in Republic Act No. 8291 indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old law[s].101
In any event, in our exercise of administrative supervision over DBP, we evaluated the subject ERIPs, and found the same to be factually and legally proper and in order. We believe that the authority of the DBP to adopt, approve and implement the ERIPs is clearly provided for by Section 13, in relation to Section 9(a) of its Charter. Accordingly, this Department interposes no objection to the adoption, approval and implementation of the subject ERIPs by the DBP Board.105
THEREFORE, be it resolved, as it is hereby resolved, to seek CONFIRMATION by the Office of the President of the Philippines of the power and authority of the DBP Board of Directors, independently of M.O. No. 20, to approve and allow the implementation and subsequent refinements of DBP's Compensation Plan, including but not limited to the following specific components of the Plan:x x x x
4) Implementation of DBP's Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP), the adoption and implementation of which has been recognized by the DBM as compliance with the government's rationalization plan as mandated by Executive Order No. 366 and by the Department of Finance as within the DBP Board's authority x x x[.]107
x x x the Bank's streamlined structure, staffing pattern, and work procedures have contributed to the improvement of service delivery and growth of net income and total assets.
We recognize that the Bank's periodic and continuing efforts at an internal reorganization, together with a special separation package, has helped maintain its competitive position and good financial standing in the banking industry.
Foregoing considered, your request is hereby approved and DBP may be exempted from the preparation of a Rationalization Plan under EO 366.109
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This Compromise Agreement made and entered into this ____ day of ________ 2018, in Makati City, by and between:THE CY 2011-2012 RETIREES OF THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES UNDER ITS EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM-IV who are the petitioners of SC-G.R. SP. NO. 207281, entitled "Elaine R. Abanto, et al. vs. The Board of Directors of the Development Bank of the Philippines", represented herein by their attorney-in-fact, Atty. Howard M. Calleja, hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees";-- and--
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL[I]PPINES, a government financial institution duly organized, existing and operating pursuant to Executive Order No. 81, as amended by Republic Act No. 8523, otherwise known as the 1986 Revised Charter of the DBP, with principal office at DBP Building, Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue corner Makati Avenue, Makati City, represented herein by its President and CEO Cecilia C. Borromeo, hereinafter referred to as "DBP";WITNESSETH: That-
WHEREAS, the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees retired from DBP under its ERIP-IV Program in CY 2011-2012.
WHEREAS, in 2013 DBP suspended the implementation of the ERIP-IV Program and did not release the early retirement incentives of the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees due to, among others, the issuance by the Commission on Audit (COA) of a Notice of Disallowance calling into question the validity and legality of the entire ERIP-IV Program.
WHEREAS, in order to compel the release of the retirement incentives, the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees filed a mandamus petition before the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 207821, entitled "Elaine R. Abanto, et al. vs. The Board of Director of DBP." This petition has been pending since 20 June 2013, and in that time some of the petitioners have already passed away and are now represented by their respective heirs, while the majority who are now senior citizens – some of whom are suffering from various illnesses – have limited opportunities for productive employment and are still waiting for the release of their retirement incentives.
WHEREAS, COA's declaration of invalidity of DBP's ERIP-IV Program is the subject of DBP's Petition for Review on Certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 210922, entitled "Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit", which is consolidated with the above-described mandamus petition. In an Order dated 18 February 2014, the Honorable Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining COA from implementing its assailed decision against DBP's ERIP-IV Program.
WHEREAS, DBP's adoption and implementation of its ERIP-IV Program has been repeatedly approved/confirmed and acknowledged as valid and legal by the Executive Department, as shown under a letter dated 16 March 2007 issued by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), a letter dated 14 January 2009 by the Secretary of Finance, and by the 22 April 2010 confirmation by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
WHEREAS, the President of the Philippines on 22 March 2016 issued Executive Order No. 203 series of 2016 [Adopting a Compensation and Position Classification System (CPCS) and a General Index of Occupational Services (IOS) for the GOCC Sector Covered by Republic Acts No. 10149 and For Other Purposes] which, among others, provides for an early retirement incentive plan for government employees and early retirement incentives in addition to retirement benefits under existing laws.
WHEREAS, E.O. 203 series of 2016 is an explicit recognition by the Executive Department that an early retirement incentive plan providing additional retirement incentives is not invalid per se and is not repugnant to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
WHEREAS, E.O. 203 series of 2016 supports the position that DBP's ERIP-IV Program is valid and legal by and of itself, in addition to it already having the stamp of approval of the DBM, Secretary of Finance and President of the Philippines.
WHEREAS, retirement benefits serve a humanitarian purpose of providing for the sustenance and, hopefully, even comfort, of retirees when they no longer have the stamina or capability to earn a livelihood.
WHEREAS, considering that ERIP-IV is a retirement program repeatedly approved and acknowledged as valid by Executive fiat, most recently through Executive (sic) E.O. 203 series of 2016, and in view of the policy favoring the liberal interpretation of retirement laws in favor of those who are intended to be benefited, and for humanitarian grounds considering the advanced age of the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees, and in order to put an end to their litigation in G.R. No. 207281, DBP, through its current Board of Directors, has agreed to release the ERIP-IV incentives of the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees, subject to the prior approval of this Compromise Agreement by the Supreme Court.
WHEREAS, DBP President and CEO Cecilia C. Borromeo was duly authorized under Resolution No. 0074 series of 2017 to enter into and sign this Compromise Agreement; and the following terms and conditions of compromise are in line with the instructions given by the DBP Board of Directors in Resolution No. 0282 series of 2017.
WHEREAS, in a letter dated 14 July 2017, COA through its Chairperson Michael C. Aguinaldo, said that "[c]onsidering that the issue on the propriety and/or legality of the disallowance on the retirement benefits under the ERIP is litis pendentia, this Commission deems it prudent to await the final decision of the Supreme Court on the case or on the proposed compromise agreement before taking any further action on (the) proposal."
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, and the covenants hereinafter provided, the parties agree as follows:
1. Upon the execution of this Agreement, the parties shall submit this Compromise Agreement for the approval of the Supreme Court En Banc in the consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 210922 and G.R. 207281, and the judgment on the Compromise Agreement rendered by the Honorable Court shall be final and executory, and no further appeal shall be made by either party.
2. DBP shall release the full amount of the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees' early retirement incentive under the ERIP-IV Program, without any interest whatsoever to their duly authorized representative, Atty. Howard M. Calleja, subject to his submission of a Special Power of Attorney executed by the Retirees, under the following conditions:(a) Release of the subject incentive shall be within twenty (20) working days from the receipt of the Supreme Court's resolution approving the Compromise Agreement and the submission by the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees of individual Quitclaims/Releases and Waivers as well as complete documents relative to their availment of the ERIP-IV Program.
(b) It is understood that ERIP-IV incentives to be released shall be net of any outstanding payables that the petitioning ERIP IV Retirees owe DBP, the DBP Provident Fund and the DBP Cooperative Credit Union; as well as any specific employee benefit received during their employment which is presently the subject of COA disallowances.
(c) The computation and determination by the DBP Human Resources Management Group of net ERIP-IV incentives to be released to the ERIP-IV Retirees shall be final, binding and conclusive upon the parties.
3. In consideration of their receipt of their ERlP-IV incentives, each of the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees hereby agree to unconditionally and volw1tarily release, waive and forever discharge DBP, its stockholders, officers, directors, agents and its employees, from any and all claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, indebtedness, and causes of action of every type, kind, nature, description or character, known or unknown, direct or indirect, whether civil, criminal or administrative, which arose as a result of, or in cmmection with or otherwise relating to their employment with DBP, including any and all claims for PERA/AdCom differential and similar benefits, their intention being to completely and absolutely free DBP and its officers, employees, and agents from such claims, demands, or causes of action.
4. The Quitclaim/Release and Waiver submitted by the Retirees pursuant to par. 2 (a) and as stated in par. 3 may be pleaded for the dismissal of any pending case, and as a bar to future suits that may be brought in any court, office or agency of whatever jurisdiction.
5. The parties acknowledge that they have read and understood the contents of this Agreement and that they have signed the same willingly, voluntarily, and with full knowledge of their rights and obligations.
6. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter and shall super[s]ede any prior expression of intent or understanding with respect to the transaction. This Agreement may not be amended or modified, except by written agreement of the parties hereto.
7. This Agreement shall be binding upon and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
8. If any one of the provisions contained in this Agreement or documents executed in cmmection herewith shall be declared invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands on the date and place first above-written.
THE CY 2011-2012 PETITIONER-RETIREES OF THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES UNDER ITS EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM-IV DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES Represented by: Represented by: (Sgd.)
ATTY. HOWARD M. CALLEJA
Counsel (Sgd.)
CECILIA C. BORROMEO
President and CEO Signed in the presence of: (Sgd.)
Atty. Daniel [indecipherable] (Sgd.)
Atty. Rene A. GaerlanACKNOWLEDGMENT
x x x x117
1. The Honorable Court resolve the consolidated cases G.R. Nos. 207281 and 210922; and
2. In the event of a decision in favor of DBP in G.R. No. 210922, the parties pray for the Honorable Court to approve the attached Compromise Agreement and that judgment be rendered in accordance therewith, without pronouncement as to the cost of suit.119
This refers to your letter dated 6 July 2017 forwarding, for the consideration of this Office, the Opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) on the proposed Compromise Agreement between the [DBP] and the [petitioners-retirees] in "Abanto, et al. v. Board of Directors of DBP, G.R. No. 207281."
In its Opinion dated 10 May 2017, the OGCC concluded that "DBP may enter into a compromise agreement with the petitioners but subject to the express consent of the COA and approval of the Supreme Court." The OGCC stated that COA is an indispensable party to any compromise agreement between the petitioners and DBP and thus, should be a signing party to the proposed agreement.
We take note of the fact that G.R. No. 207281 is consolidated with G.R. No. 210922, a case initiated by DBP against COA questioning the [ND] against the release of retirement benefits to an earlier batch of retirees under a similar [ERIP]. It is this very ND that prompted the DBP to withhold the release of the retirement benefits of Abanto, et al. leading to the filing of G.R.207281 before the Supreme Court.
Considering that the issue on the propriety and/or legality of the disallowance on the retirement benefits under the ERIP is litis pendentia, this Commission deems it prudent to await the final decision of the Supreme Court on the case or on the proposed compromise agreement before taking any further action on [the] proposa1.121
Endnotes:
i Stated as "Aureo Jr. B. Bilangel" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, rollo (G.R. No. 207281), pp. 3, 316. Substituted by his heirs Salvadora N. Bilangel, Judy Ann N Bilangel, Monica N. Bilangel, Charles N. Bilangel, and John N. Bilangel; see Notice of Death of Party and Substitution, rollo (G .R. No. 207281), Vol. 2, pp. 992-994.
ii Also stated as "C" in other parts of the rollo.
iii Substituted by his heirs Jovencia T. Dangcalan, Joemar Tan Dangcalan, and Kim Tan Dangcalan; see Notice of Death of Party and Substitution, rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 978-981 and Manifestation Re: Notice of Death and Substitution for Petitioner Marcelo Sumiwan Dangcalan, id. at 986-988.
iv Also stated as "Aniceto Jr. K. Javier" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, rollo (G.R. No. 207281), pp. 4, 317.
v Also stated as "D" in other parts of the rollo.
vi Substituted by his heirs Amordeliza C. Manamtam, Andrey Dan Manamtam, Aleeza Danice Manamtam, and Aldrich Dan Manamtam; see Notice of Death of Party and Substitution, rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 716-718 and Manifestation Re: Notice of Death for Petitioner Danilo Abisinia Manamtam, rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 973-977.
vii Substituted by his heirs Feliciana S. Marcos, Jefferson S. Marcos, Jenny Pearl S. Marcos, Christopher S. Marcos, and Roxanne S. Marcos; see Notice of Death of Patty and Substitution with Manifestation, rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, pp. 753-758.
viii Also stated as "Gregorio Jr. M. Mico" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, rollo (G. R. No. 207281), pp. 4, 317.
ix Also stated as "Bernardino Jr. E. Olayvar" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, id.
x Also stated as "Arsenio V.V. Royales" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, id.
xi See Manifestation, rollo (G. R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, pp. 316-321.
xii Also stated as "D" in other parts of the rollo.
xiii Substituted by her heirs Joanna Chris C. Sustento and Julius Cezar C. Sustento; see Notice of Death of Party and Substitution, rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 692-695.
xiv Substituted by his heir Teresita D. Taniñas; see Notice of Death of Patty and Substitution, rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 1033-1035.
1Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, pp. 3-181, excluding Annexes.
2Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 3-62, excluding Annexes.
3 Id. at 75-81.
4Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, pp. 8-9.
5 Id. at 9.
6Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 82-89.
7 Id. at 82.
8 Id. at 91-94.
9 Id. at 629. R.A. 8523 is entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 81."
10 Id. at 94 and 629.
11 SEC. 34. Separation Benefits. — All those who shall retire from the service or are separated therefrom on account of the reorganization of the Bank under the provisions of this Charter shall be entitled to all gratuities and benefits provided for under existing laws and/or supplementary retirement plans adopted by and effective in the Bank: Provided, that any separation benefits and incentives which may be granted by the Bank subsequent to June 1, 1986, which may be in addition to those provided under existing laws and previous retirement programs of the Bank prior to the said date, for those personnel referred to in this section shall be funded by the National Government; Provided, further, that, any supplementary retirement plan adopted by the Bank after the effectivity of this Charter shall require the prior approval of the Minister of Finance.
12 PROVIDING FOR THE 1986 REVISED CHARTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES.
13Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 629.
14 Id. at 95-113.
15 Id. at 629.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 114.
18 Id. at 629-630.
19 Id. at 630.
20Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, p. 214.
21Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 630.
22Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, pp. 12, 214.
23Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 630.
24Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, p. 215.
25 Id. at 12-13.
26Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 180-187. Penned by Director IV Luz Loreto-Tolentino.
27 AN ACT AMENDING FURTHER COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIX, AS AMENDED; approved on June 17, 1967 and published on February 24, 1969.
28Rollo (G. R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 630.
29 Id. at 188-258.
30 Id. at 64-65.
31Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, pp. 13-14.
32Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 63-72. Decided by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido-Tan, Commissioner Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Commissioner Heidi L. Mendoza.
33 Id. at 71-72.
34 Id. at 15.
35 Id. at 73-74.
36 Id. at 631.
37Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, p. 15.
38 Id. at 16. Italics and underscoring omitted.
39 Id. at 16-17.
40 Id. at 17.
41 Id. at 268-309, excluding Annexes.
42 AN ACT REQUIRING ALL CONCERNED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO ENSURE THE EARLY RELEASE OF THE RETIREMENT PAY, PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND OTHER BENEFITS OF RETIRING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
43Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, pp. 17-20.
44 Id. at 354-393.
45 Id. at 367-368.
46 Id. at 542-569.
47 467 Phil. 62 (2004).
48Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 16-18.
49 Id. at 56-57.
50 Id. at 615-616.
51 Id. at 615.
52 Id. at 628-650.
53 Id. at 659-679.
54 674 Phil. 204 (2011).
55Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 659-661.
56 Id. at 652.
57Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 964-970.
58 Id. at 995-998.
59 Id. at 1013-1014. Resolution dated January 30, 2018.
60 Id. at 1021. Petitioners-movants Mary Irma D. Lara and Josephine Jaurigue also signed the Compromise Agreement with the following notation: "subject to a favorable resolution of their Motion for Inclusion as Petitioners to G.R. No. 207281 dated October 19, 2017."
61 Id. at 1015-1030, including Annexes.
62 Id. at 1016.
63 Id. at 1021-1029.
64 Also stated as "C" in the Manifestation and Motion for Resolution with Joint Motion for Judgment Based on Compromise Agreement and the Compromise Agreement, id. at 1016, 1024.
65Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, p. 1030.
66 Id.
67Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. I, pp. 16-20 (DBP's Petition); rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 632 (COA's Comment) and 659-661 (DBP's Reply); rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 755-756 (DBP's Memorandum) and 912 (COA's Memorandum).
68 AN ACT TO AMEND COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIX ENTITLED 'AN ACT TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, TO PROVIDE FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION, AND TO APPROPRIATE THE NECESSARY FUNDS THEREFOR' AND TO PROVIDE RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
69 AN ACT FURTHER AMENDING SECTION TWELVE OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX, AS AMENDED, BY PRESCRIBING TWO OTHER MODES OF RETIREMENT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
70Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 82-85. Additional emphasis supplied.
71 Id. at 67.
72 Id. at 25.
73 674 Phil. 578 (2011).
74 Id. at 600. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; emphasis in the original omitted.
75 Id. at 584, 601.
76 Id. at 601.
77Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 82.
78 Id.
79 Id. at 635-636.
80 See GSIS v. COA, supra note 73, at 604.
81 SEC. 13. Retirement Benefits. – x x xx x x x
(b) Unless the service is extended by appropriate authorities, retirement shall be compulsory for an employee at sixty-five (65) years of age with at least fifteen (15) years of service: Provided, That if he has less than fifteen (15) years of service, he may be allowed to continue in the service in accordance with existing civil service rules and regulations.
SEC. 13-A. Conditions for Entitlement. — A member who retires from the service shall be entitled to the benefits enumerated in paragraph (a) of Section 13 hereof: Provided, That:(1) he has rendered at least fifteen (15) years of service;
(2) he is at least sixty (60) years of age at the time of retirement; and
(3) he is not receiving a monthly pension benefit from permanent total disability.
82GSIS v. COA, supra note 73, at 585. Underscoring supplied.
83 Id. at 584.
84GSIS v. COA, supra note 73, at 601. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; emphasis in the original omitted.
85Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 82.
86Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 769-771. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; emphasis and underscoring in the original omitted.
87Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 637.
88 See id. at 22-24.
89 565 Phil. 271 (2007).
90 Id. at 290, 291.
91 623 Phil. 383 (2009).
92 Id. at 402. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; emphasis and underscoring in original omitted.
93 Supra note 54, at 251-252.
94 Id. at 253.
95 Id. at 255.
96 ART. 298. [283] Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. — The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.
97 ART. 299. [284] Disease as Ground for Termination. — An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.
98Arc-Men Food Industries Corp. v. NLRC, 436 Phil. 371, 380-381 (2002).
99Goodyear Philippines, Inc. v. Angus, 746 Phil. 668, 681 (2014). Italics supplied.
100DBP v. COA, supra note 47, at 82-83. Additional emphasis and underscoring supplied.
101Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, p. 258, citing GSIS v. COA, supra note 73, at 598. Emphasis in the original omitted.
102GSIS v. COA, id. Underscoring supplied.
103De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017, 843 SCRA 1, 160.
104Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 115.
105 Id. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
106 Id. at 178-179.
107 Id. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; italics omitted.
108 Id. at 114.
109 Id.
110 Id. at 115.
111 See rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, p. 15.
112Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 867-868.
113 Id. at 841.
114 Id. at 889-899.
115Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 2, pp. 1001-1002. Subject to a favorable resolution of their Motion for Inclusion as Petitioners to G.R. No. 207281 dated October 19, 2017.
116Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, p. 1065. Actual date not stated in the rollo.
117 Id. at 1021-1029. Citations omitted.
118 Id. at 1015-1020.
119 Id. at 1016.
120 Id.
121 Id. at 1030. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.