EN BANC
[A.M. No. 10-3-4-SC. February 28, 2012.]
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated FEBRUARY 28, 2012, which reads as follows:
"A.M. NO. 10-3-4-SC REQUEST OF RET. JUSTICE ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO RELATIVE TO HIS RETIREMENT
RESOLUTION
Before the Court En Banc are the following letter-requests filed by retired Justice Artemio G. Tuquero:
(a) Letter dated 15 December 2010 requesting that he be accorded the benefits under Republic Act No. 10071, Sections 14, 16 and 24 and praying that his retirement be under Section 1 of R.A. No. 910, not under the said law as amended by R.A. No. 9946; that he be entitled to a monthly pension starting 15 February 2005 or after the lapse of five (5) years from 15 February 2000, the reckoning date of his retirement; that beginning 08 April 2010, when R.A. No. 10071 became effective, his monthly pension be that of a Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals; and that he be entitled to longevity pay of 10%, the same to be included in the computation of his retirement gratuity and monthly pension; and
(b) Letter dated 27 April 2011 stating, among others, that if more time is required for the Court to resolve the issues raised in his letter dated 15 December 2010, he requests for a partial implementation of the SC Resolution of 23 March 2010 approving his retirement under R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. No. 9946, first, by authorizing payment of his monthly gratuity starting from the date of effectivity of R.A. No. 9946, and second, consistent with the rulings in GSIS vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 186560, 17 November 2010, by adjusting his monthly pension to that of a CA Presiding Justice starting from 08 April 2010, when R.A. No. 10071 took effect.
The record shows that, acting on Justice Tuquero's 23 February 2010 letter relative to his application for retirement under Section 1 of R.A. No. 910, 1 as amended by R.A. No. 9946, 2 the Court issued the Resolution dated 23 March 2010 granting him "the retirement gratuity benefits under said law, deducting therefrom any benefits he may have already received by reason of his previous retirement, including pensions." Subsequently, Justice Tuquero filed the letters presently under consideration which were noted in the Court's Resolution dated 5 July 2011 and were likewise referred the Employees Welfare and Benefits Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA), for evaluation, report and recommendation. AIDTSE
In compliance with the directive, the OAS-OCA submitted its 16 January 2012 memorandum, recommending the denial of Justice Tuquero's letter requests and, in lieu thereof, the grant of his "pension benefit under R.A. No. 910, as amended by R.A. No. 9946, to start on 11 February 2010, the effectivity of R.A. No. 9946, subject to the availability of funds and/or release of funds by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) for the purpose. The OAS-OCA reported:
It is also Justice Tuquero's request, having served the DOJ as Prosecutor General for 8.53562 years or for the period 01 January 1980 to 14 July 1988, that he be accorded the benefits under Sections 14, 16 and 24 of R.A. No. 10071 and be able to receive the monthly gratuity of a Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, beginning 08 April 2010 when R.A. No. 10071 took effect, citing the case of GSIS v. Fernando de Leon.
It is our humble submission that the retirement benefits under R.A. No. 10071 applies to those that are retiring from the National Prosecution Service. Considering that Justice Tuquero was considered retired as a member of the Judiciary, particularly as an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, R.A. No. 10071 of the Prosecution Service Act of 2010 will no longer apply in his case.
Section 4 of R.A. No. 910, as amended by R.A. No. 5095, states that a retiring Justice or Judge who is entitled to the benefits of any prior gratuity Act shall have the option to choose between the benefits in such Act and those herein provided for and, in such case, he shall be entitled only to the benefits so chosen. If a retiring Justice or Judge [cannot] avail of the retirement benefits under a prior retirement law simultaneously with the benefits under R.A. No. 910, as amended, with more reasons that the retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910, as amended, [cannot] be availed of at the same time with the retirement benefits of a different government agency.
Justice Tuquero further requests that he be entitled to a monthly pension starting 15 February 2005 or after the lapse of five (5) years from 15 February 2000, the reckoning date of his retirement.
It is provided under Revised Administrative Circular No. 81-2010 that after the expiration of the five-year period, the optional retiree shall receive during the residue of his/her natural life, a monthly pension equivalent to the highest monthly salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of RATA and other allowances such as PERA and ADDCOM which he/she was then receiving.
However, Section 3-B of R.A. No. 910, as amended by R.A. No. 9946, provides that while the benefits under said Act shall apply to those who have retired prior to the effectivity of the Act, the benefits to be granted shall be prospective. Thus, Justice Tuquero's entitlement to the pension under R.A. No. 910, as amended by R.A. No. 9946, shall be prospective and shall, therefore start only on 11 February 2010, the effectivity of R.A. No. 9946.
Finally, Justice Tuquero requests that he be entitled to longevity pay of 10%, the same to be included in the computation of his retirement gratuity and monthly pension.
Longevity pay is paid to Justices and Judges pursuant to Section 42 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which states that a monthly longevity pay equivalent to 5% of the basic monthly pay shall be paid to the Justices and Judges of the courts herein created for each five years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the Judiciary.
As earlier stated, Justice Tuquero has rendered only 3.86347 years of service as member of the Judiciary, particularly as an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals before he transferred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on 15 February 2000, thus, he is not entitled to longevity pay. 3EDACSa
The Court's Ruling
We find Justice Tuquero's letter-requests impressed with partial merit.
Having opted to retire under R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. 9946, Justice Tuquero cannot, after the grant of his request, now urge computation of his benefits under R.A. 10071, 4 otherwise known as the Prosecution Service Act of 2010. Considered retired as an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals at sixty-eight (68) years old as of 15 February 2010, Justice Tuquero is ineligible for the retirement benefits provided under R.A. 10071, for those who retire from the National Prosecution Service. As correctly observed by the OAS-OCA, Section 4 of R.A. 910 explicitly provides for the exclusivity of the retirement benefits therein provided, viz.:
Section 4. A retiring Justice who is entitled to the benefits of any prior retirement gratuity Act shall have the option to choose between the benefits in such Act and those herein provided for, and in such case he shall be entitled only to the benefits so chosen: Provided, however, That a Justice retired under any prior Act and who is thereafter appointed to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals, shall be entitled to the benefits of this Act on condition that, in case he has not fully refunded to the Government the gratuity previously received by him, there shall be deducted from the amount payable to him under this Act such monthly installments as are required in section six of Act Numbered Four thousand and fifty-one, as amended, until the gratuity already received by him shall have been refunded in full. (Italics supplied)
The same dearth of merit permeates Justice Tuquero's request for computation of his retirement benefits in accordance with Section 1 of R.A. 910 and not as amended by Section 1 of R.A. 9946. Having served only three (3) years, nine (9) months and three (3) days as Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, he did not meet the minimum qualifications for optional retirement under R.A. 910 which required government service for at least twenty (20) years, the last five (5) years of which shall have been continuously rendered as a Justice/Judge. Declared as eligible for optional retirement in our 23 March 2010 resolution by virtue of the amendments introduced by R.A. 9946 which reduced said minimum qualifications to government service of at least fifteen (15) years, the last three (3) of which shall have been continuously with the Judiciary, it stands to reason that Justice Tuquero's retirement should be computed in accordance with the new law. Although R.A. 9946 was passed into law on 11 November 2009 or long after Justice Tuquero's retirement on 23 January 2001, Section 3-B thereof clearly states that its provisions apply to those who have retired prior to its effectivity. 5
Given his retirement as a Court of Appeals Justice under R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. 9946, and the exclusivity of the benefits thereunder, on the other hand, we cannot act on Justice Tuquero's request that he should be given gratuity equivalent to that of a Presiding Justice of said court pursuant to Section 14 of R.A. No. 10071, beginning 8 April 2010, the date the latter law took effect. In support of his request, Justice Tuquero invokes the Court's ruling in Government Service Insurance System vs. Fernando P. De Leon6 which involved a Chief Prosecutor whose application for retirement under R.A. 910, in relation to R.A. 3783, 7 as amended by R.A. 4140, 8 was approved by the GSIS. After receiving benefits under said law for more than nine years, however, the GSIS discontinued De Leon's monthly pension on the ground that the benefits under R.A. 910 were available only to justices and judges. Applying the rule that retirement laws should be liberally construed in favor of the retiree, the Court held that the payment of benefits pursuant to P.D. 1146 9 under which De Leon is likewise qualified was not equivalent to double retirement or unjust enrichment. In addition, the Court ruled as follows:
. . . While this case was pending, the Congress enacted Republic Act No. 10071, the Prosecution Service Act of 2010. On April 8, 2010, it lapsed into law without the signature of the President, pursuant to Article VI, Section 27 (1) of the Constitution. ADcHES
Section 24 of R.A. No. 10071 provides:
Section 24. Retroactivity. — The benefits mentioned in Sections 14 and 16 hereof shall be granted to all those who retired prior to the effectivity of this Act.
By virtue of this express provision, respondent is covered by R.A. No. 10071. In addition, he is now entitled to avail of the benefits provided by Section 23, that "all pension benefits of retired prosecutors of the National Prosecution Service shall be automatically increased whenever there is an increase in the salary and allowance of the same position from which he retired."
Respondent, as former Chief State Prosecutor, albeit the position has been renamed "Prosecutor General," should enjoy the same retirement benefits as the Presiding Justice of the CA, pursuant to Section 14 of R.A. No. 10071, to wit:
Section 14. Qualifications, Rank and Appointment of the Prosecutor General. — The Prosecutor General shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, category, prerogatives, salary grade and salaries, allowances, emoluments, and other privileges, shall be subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications, and shall enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as those of the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals and shall be appointed by the President.
Furthermore, respondent should also benefit from the application of Section 16 of the law, which states:
Section 16. Qualifications, Ranks, and Appointments of Prosecutors, and other Prosecution Officers. — . . . .
Any increase after the approval of this Act in the salaries, allowances or retirement benefits or any upgrading of the grades or levels thereof of any or all of the Justices or Judges referred to herein to whom said emoluments are assimilated shall apply to the corresponding prosecutors.
Lastly, and most importantly, by explicit fiat of R.A. No. 10071, members of the National Prosecution Service have been granted the retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910, to wit:
Section 25. Applicability. — All benefits heretofore extended under Republic Act No. 910, as amended, and all other benefits that may be extended by the way of amendment thereto shall likewise be given to the prosecutors covered by this Act.
Hence, from the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 10071, respondent should be entitled to receive retirement benefits granted under R.A. No. 910.
However, unlike De Leon who retired as a Chief Prosecutor under R.A. 910, in relation to R.A. 3783, as amended by R.A. 4140, Justice Tuquero applied for and was allowed to retire as a Justice of the Court of Appeals under R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. 9946. Pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 81-10 which was issued on 3 November 2010, 10 "(t)he amount necessary for the initial implementation of RA No. 9946 shall be charged against the current year's savings of the respective courts from which the Justice or Judge retires" and, "(t)hereafter, such sums as may be necessary for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act." In addition to providing the procedure and requirements for the availment of the benefits provided under the law, the same circular likewise tasked the Office of Administrative Services and the Fiscal Management and Budget Office of the Supreme Court as well as the Office of Administrative Services and Financial Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator with the implementation thereof. aTSEcA
In contrast, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued Department Circular No. 050-10 11 on 25 June 2010 to provide guidelines for the implementation of R.A. 10071. Section 624 of the circular provides, in part, that it is the GSIS which will take charge of the enforcement and operation of the provisions on retirement of R.A. 10071 in relation to R.A. 910, as amended. While it is true that Section 24 of R.A. 10071 pertinently states that the benefits provided under Section 14 12 of the law shall be granted to all those who retired prior to the effectivity thereof, Section 623 of Department Circular No. 050-10 provides that the benefits under said law, "in relation to R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. 9946, shall be granted to all those whose last retirement was as prosecutors prior to the effective date of R.A. 10071: Provided, however, That the benefits shall be applicable only to members of the national prosecution service: Provided, further, that the benefits to be granted shall be prospective and subject to availability of funds." 13 Clearly, Justice Tuquero's entitlement to the retirement benefits of a Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Sec. 14 of R.A. 10071 is a matter better addressed to the DOJ and the GSIS.
The foregoing disquisition notwithstanding, we find that substantial merit is impressed in Justice Tuquero's request for payment of longevity pay equivalent to ten (10%) of his basic monthly salary. While it is true that Justice Tuquero has served as a Court of Appeals Justice for a period of only three (3) years, nine (9) months and three (3) days, appropriate note is taken of the fact that he has likewise served as Chief Prosecutor with the Department of Justice for a period of seven (7) years, six (6) months and twelve (12) days. Applying the rulings in the cases of Justice Emilio A. Gancayco and Justice Buenaventura dela Fuente, this Court granted the request of Court of Appeals Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga that her services as Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Laguna be credited as part of her services in the Judiciary for purposes of her retirement. 14 Following the policy of interpreting retirement laws in favor of the retiree, 15 we find that Justice Tuquero's accumulated years of service in the Judiciary and the Department of Justice sufficient to entitle him to the longevity pay of 10% of his basic monthly salary which translates into the longevity pay at the rate of 5% of the basic monthly pay for each five years of service provided under Sec. 42 16 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. 17AHCaES
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court En BancRESOLVED to APPROVE the request of Justice Artemio G. Tuquero for payment of longevity pay equivalent to ten percent (10%) of his basic monthly salary. The rest of his request in the subject letters dated 15 December 2010 and 27 April 2011 is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION for lack of authority of the Court it being covered by Department Circular No. 050-10 of the Department of Justice entitled "A Circular Providing Guidelines for Implementing the Prosecution Service Act of 2010, Republic Act No. 10071." Del Castillo, J., on official leave. Sereno, J., on leave. (adv67)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
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 Numbered Five Hundred and Thirty-Six.
2.An Act Granting Additional Retirement, Survivorship, and Other Benefits to Members of the Judiciary, Amending for Purpose Republic Act No. 910, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.
3.Rollo, A.M. No. 10-3-4-SC, pp. 77-78.
4.An Act Strengthening and Rationalizing the National Prosecution Service.
5.Section 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.
6.G.R. No. 186560, 17 November 2010, 635 SCRA 321.
7.An Act Reorganizing the Prosecution Division and the Deportation Board of the Department of Justice and Fixing the Compensation of Certain Personnel Therein.
8.An Act Amending Republic Act Numbered Three Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-Three.
9.Amending, Expanding, Increasing and Integrating the Social Security and Insurance Benefits of Government Employees and Facilitating the Payment Thereof Under Commonwealth Act No. 186, as Amended and for Other Purposes.
10.Guidelines on the Implementation of Republic Act No. 9946.
11.A Circular Providing for Guidelines for Implementing the Prosecution Service Act of 2010, Republic Act No. 10071.
12.SECTION 14. Qualifications, Rank and Appointment of the Prosecutor General. — The Prosecutor General shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, category, prerogatives, salary grade and salaries, allowances, emoluments and other privileges, shall be subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications, and shall enjoy the same retirement and other benefits as those of the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals and shall be appointed by the President.
13.Underscoring supplied.
14.A.M. No. 11-10-7-SC, 14 February 2012.
15.Re: Monthly Pension of Judges and Justices, A.M. No. 90-9-019-SC, 4 October 1990, 190 SCRA 315, 320.
16.Section 42. Longevity pay. — A monthly longevity pay equivalent to 5% of the monthly basic pay shall be paid to the Justices and Judges of the courts herein created for each five years of continuous, efficient, and meritorious service rendered in the judiciary; Provided, That in no case shall the total salary of each Justice or Judge concerned, after this longevity pay is added, exceed the salary of the Justice or Judge next in rank.
17.An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds therefor, and for Other Purposes.