25 Lopez v. Ca

G.R. No.
104158 November 6, 1992
HON. GEMILIANO LOPEZ, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of Manila; EUFEMIA

DOMIGUEZ, in her capacity as City Budget Officer; HERMINIO ARCEO, in his
capacity as Chairman, Committee for Retirement Gratuity and Terminal Leave Pay
of the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila; and HON. ANTHONY ACEVEDO, in his
capacity as City Treasurer of Manila, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and GALICIANO P. MANAPAT, respondents.
FACTS:
 On 29 February 1972, private respondent Galicano Manapat retired from the

government service as Chief of the Legal Division of the office of the Municipal
Board of Manila. He retired under the provisions of R.A. No. 1616, as amended,
having then rendered twenty (20) years of service to petitioner City of Manila and
received the amount of P24,479.02 representing his full retirement benefit.
 On April 1977, Manapat was reemployed by the City of Manila this time as Secretary
of the City of Manila Board of Tax Assessment Appeals, with a monthly salary of
P3,993.33. He occupied that position until he reached the compulsory retirement age
of sixty-five (65) years on 27 June 1989. The City of Manila extended his period of
service for six (6) months, i.e., up to 27 December 1989. During this additional
period of service, i.e., on 1 July 1989, the Salary Standardization Law (R.A. No.
6758) took effect and increased Manapat's monthly salary from P3,993.33 to
P11,385.00.
 Upon expiration of private respondent Manapat's six (6)-month extended period of

service, he filed with the Government Service Insurance System ("GSIS") an
application for retirement under R.A. No. 1616, as amended. This application was
approved by the GSIS on 6 April 1990, initially on the basis of his previous salary of
P3,993.33 per month; on that basis, he was entitled to a total retirement gratuity of
P179,274.04, less the amount of P24,479.02 previously received as retirement pay
when he first retired on 29 February 1972, making a net balance of P154,795.02.
 On 16 May 1990, the GSIS adjusted Manapat's approved application for retirement
to conform with his last standardized monthly salary of P11,385.00. This adjustment
resulted in a total collectible retirement pay or gratuity of P486,634.84 for Manapat..
 however, the Chairman of that Committee returned the papers to the Manila Board
of Tax Assessment Appeals without acting on the retirement gratuity claim of
Manapat, upon the ground that it was existing policy of the City of Manila that an
employee who has reached the compulsory retirement age of sixty-five (65) years
must retire under R.A. No. 660 and not under the provisions of R.A. No. 1616, as
amended.
 On 1 October 1990, the City Legal Officer of the City of Manila rendered a written
opinion to the effect that the City, as employer, had discretionary authority to allow or
disallow a claim to retire under R.A. No. 1616, as amended, considering that
retirement under that law was optional and payment of retirement benefits
thereunder was subject to the availability if funds. A week later, on 8 October 1990,
Manapat received a letter from petitioner City Mayor advising that his (Manapat's)
request for settlement of his claim for retirement gratuity under R.A. No. 1616 could
not be favorably acted upon due to financial constraints upon the City Government.
 Manapat then commenced in the Regional Trial Court of the City of Manila, a special
civil action for mandamus to compel petitioner officials of the city of Manila to allow
Manapat to retire under the provisions of R.A. No. 1616, as amended. The trial court
dismissed the petition.
 On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial court and issued a
writ of mandamus ordering petitioner officials to pay the retirement claim of Mr.
Manapat in the amount of P486,636.84 with legal interest from the time of filling of
the petition for mandamus and awarded as well Mr. Manapat P30,000.00 as moral
damages and another P30,000.00 as attorney's fees.
ISSUE: Whether a government employee, who has reached the compulsory retirement
age of 65 years, may opt to retire under R.A. No. 1616 as amended or, alternatively, is
entitled only to retirement benefits under the mandatory retirement clause of R.A. No.
660
RULING:
Both R.A. No. 660 and R.A. No. 1616 were amendments to Commonwealth Act
("C.A.") No. 186, otherwise known as the Government Service Insurance System
Charter. Section 12, C.A. No. 186, as amended by both R.A. No. 660 and R.A. No. 1616
Petitioners, however, insist that a government employee who has reached the
compulsory retirement age of sixty-five (65) years, with at least fifteen (15) years of
service in the government, has no choice save to retire under the provisions of Section
12(e) of C.A. No. 186 as amended (i.e., R.A. No. 660), retirement thereunder being
"automatic and compulsory."
The Court is unable to agree. While Section 12(e) of C.A. No. 186 as amended
provides that "[r]etirement shall be automatic and compulsory at the age of 65 years,"
there is nothing in the statute to suggest that a government employee who, like private
respondent Manapat, happens to satisfy the requirements not only of Section 12(e). but
also Section 12(a), 12(b) and 12(c), must necessarily retire under Section 12(e). We find
it very difficult to understand why a government employee who reaches the compulsory
retirement age of sixty-five (65) but who has served a total, not of fifteen (15) years (the
minimum required under 12[e]) but rather thirty-five (35) years (i.e., more than the years
of service specified under 12[a], 12[b] and 12[c]), should be regarded as deprived of the
right to retire under 12(c) (i.e., R.A. No. 1616 as amended), where the required number
of years of services is only twenty (20).
The interpretation urged by petitioners is conspicuously at war with the basic

policy purpose of C.A. No. 186 as amended by R.A. No. 1616 which is, of course, to
create an added incentive for qualified government employees to remain in the service of
the government. The basic principles for the construction of statutes tell us that a statute
must be read in such a way as to give effect to the purpose projected in the statute.
Under this principle of effectiveness, retirement statutes, in case of a real as
distinguished from a merely ostensible doubt or ambiguity, must be so construed as to
give meaning and effect to their humanitarian purposes and so as reasonably to benefit
employees who had opted to stay in the services of the government for so many
years. Thus, we read Section 12(c) as applicable in respect of private respondent
3
Manapat who had complied with the requirement of that subsection of at least twenty (20)
years of service. The benefits of Section 12(c) are, under its express terms, available to
anyone who shall have rendered at least twenty (20) years of service, "regardless of [the]
age" reached by the retiree at the time of his retirement.

25 Lopez v. Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

25 Lopez v. Ca

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

25 Lopez v. Ca

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

104158 November 6, 1992

HON. GEMILIANO LOPEZ, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of Manila; EUFEMIA

 On 29 February 1972, private respondent Galicano Manapat retired from the

 Upon expiration of private respondent Manapat's six (6)-month extended period of

The interpretation urged by petitioners is conspicuously at war with the basic

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.