G.R. No. L-21267. February 28, 1969
FILOMENO ANCIANO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. MOISES G. OTADOY, AS MAYOR, TEOFILO OTADOY, AS VICE-MAYOR, ALL SIX MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AND/OR INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIV…
CASTRO, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision of February 6, 1963 of the Court of First Instance of
Cebu in civil case R-7613, which was an action for
mandamus with damages.
The antecedent facts are not disputed.
From August 6, 1917 until his retirement on December 19, 1958,
the appellant Filomeno Anciano
had been continuously in the government service: temporary clerk in the office
of the municipal treasurer of Catarman, Misamis, from August 6, 1917; acting principal clerk in the
office of the municipal treasurer of Bogo, Cebu, from June 16, 1919; acting municipal treasurer and
postmaster of Tudela, Cebu,
from July 24, 1920; permanent treasurer and postmaster of Tudela,
Cebu, from March 1, 1924; municipal treasurer and
postmaster of Poro, Cebu,
from March 3, 1930; municipal treasurer of San Francisco, Cebu,
from August 16, 1947; municipal treasurer of Tudela,
Cebu, from February 28, 1949; municipal treasurer and
postmaster of Poro, Cebu,
from January 11, 1953. As municipal
treasurer, he was ex officio deputy provincial treasurer with
respect to the collection of revenues, pursuant to sec. 2208 of the Revised
Administrative Code.
On May 6, 1928
he applied for the benefits of Act 2589, as amended, otherwise known as the Osmeña Retirement Law.
His application was acknowledged on June 7, 1928 by the Office of the Governor-General.
On November 14, 1936
Commonwealth Act 186, more commonly known as the Government Service Insurance
Act, was approved. Pursuant to the said
act, the province of Cebu automatically became a
member of the Government Service Insurance System (hereinafter referred to as
the GSIS). The municipality
of Poro, Cebu (hereinafter referred to as the
Municipality) did not, however, become a member, because municipalities, other
than first class, are not compulsorily covered by the said law. As deputy provincial treasurer and
postmaster, Anciano paid retirement premiums to the
GSIS, while the province of Cebu paid the counterpart
employer’s contributions. He did not,
however, remit any retirement premiums as municipal treasurer because, as
earlier stated, the Municipality was then and until now is not a member of the
GSIS, and therefore his salary as such official was exempt from any deduction
of retirement premiums.
When he retired in 1958, he was granted retirement insurance
benefits by the GSIS as deputy provincial treasurer and postmaster. His application for retirement compensation
as municipal treasurer was, however, predictably disapproved on the ground that
the Municipality was not a member of the GSIS.
Consequently, he pursued his application for the benefits
provided by the Osmeña Retirement Law, as
amended. On February 11, 1960 the Civil Service Commission –
the office charged with the determination of whether an employee has
established his right to retirement gratuity under Act 2589[1]
– ruled “that the petitioner had established his right to retirement
under Section 1 of Act 2589, as amended, within the statutory period.”
Thereafter in reply to a query sent to the provincial treasurer of Cebu regarding the highest salary received by Anciano as municipal treasurer of Poro,
the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Service was informed that Anciano’s
highest salary as deputy provincial and municipal treasurer was P1,860 per
annum, P960 of which was paid from provincial funds and P900 from municipal
funds.
The provincial treasurer of Cebu,
acting under the impression that the retirement pay of Anciano
is a statutory obligation of the Municipality pursuant to sec. 1 of Rep. Act
2264, recommend ed to the council of the Municipality the inclusion of his (Anciano’s) retirement pay in the general budget for the
fiscal year 1962-1963. Anciano and his counsel also made similar requests to the
municipal council and the mayor, to no avail.
Thus, unable to collect what he believed was rightfully his, Anciano on July
27, 1962 filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu civil case R-7613, for mandamus with damages, against
the Mayor, vice-mayor, members of the municipal council and the treasurer of
the Municipality, in their official as well as private capacities.
On February 6, 1963
the lower court rendered judgment dismissing Anciano’s
petition.
In his appeal before us, he maintains that the lower court erred
(1)
In deciding that since the Municipality is not a
member of the GSIS, it cannot be made to pay the gratuity provided for in Act
2589, as amended;
(2)
In ruling that there is no law which makes it
obligatory upon a non-member municipality to pay out of its funds the said
gratuity;
(3)
In not granting the writ and damages prayed for
and in dismissing the petition.
We affirm the judgment a quo for the reasons hereinbelow stated.
1. The lower court correctly
held that the gratuity claimed by the appellant under sec. 1 of Act 2589 is not
a liability of the Municipality. But it
erroneously anchored its ruling on the fact that the Municipality is not a
member of the GSIS, which has no relevance to the resolution of this
issue. What is pertinent is that
pursuant to sec. 4 of Act 2589, the sums necessary to implement its provisions
were appropriated out of funds in the Insular (now National) Treasury not
otherwise appropriated.[2]
Thus, assuming arguendo that the appellant is entitled to gratuity
under Act 2589, he should look to the National Government for payment and not
to the Municipality.
At all events, it is not denied that the appellant was retired as
deputy provincial treasurer and postmaster of the Municipality and granted the
corresponding retirement insurance benefits under the provisions of the GSIS
Act. Having thus availed himself of the
retirement benefits under the GSIS law, he cannot now legally be granted
further gratuity under Act 2589 because section 28(b) of the GSIS Act, as
amended, provides that “… no gratuity or benefit shall be paid by an
employer to an employee entitled to the retirement benefit of this Act.”
Indeed, we ruled in Gabriel vs. Government Service Insurance System
(L-11580, May 9, 1958) and emphasized in Lacson
vs. Auditor General (L-12538, April 29, 1960), that under the second
paragraph of section 28 of the GSIS Act, as amended, any gratuity is excluded
by the enjoyment of retirement insurance benefits. Consequently, the appellant – by receiving retirement
insurance benefits under the GSIS law – has, by his own voluntary act, divested
himself of his right to gratuity under Act 2589.
In Cebu Portland Cement Co.
vs. De Jesus (L-18146, March 30, 1963), this Court, speaking through
Justice Alejo Labrador, held that
“[C]ommonwealth Act No. 186, as
amended, prohibits the grant of gratuity or benefit to an employee who has
already received the retirement benefits granted under the law. The policy of the law is to grant only one
gratuity or retirement benefit.” (Underscoring supplied)
In truth, this policy merely echoes that
enunciated in the very law (Act 2589) upon which the appellant bases his claim
to further gratuity. For section 1
thereof provides, inter alia, that –
“[A]ny officer or employee entitled
to the benefits of this Act, and who is entitled to any, benefits from any
pension fund created by authority of the Philippine Legislature, shall be required
to designate which of such benefits he desires to take advantage of, and in
such case he shall be entitled only to the benefits so chosen. …”
It is beyond cavil that Commonwealth Act
186, as amended by Republic Act 660, constituted or created a pension fund or
plan. And when the appellant applied for
and received the benefits provide for in the said Act, he must be deemed to
have waived the benefits available under Act 2589.
The appellant of course argues that he was granted under the GSIS
Act only the retirement benefits corresponding to his positions as deputy
provincial treasurer and postmaster, respectively; ergo, he should be awarded
retirement gratuity as municipal treasurer.
The foregoing argument completely ignores the overriding consideration
that although he was simultaneously discharging the duties of postmaster,
municipal treasurer and deputy provincial treasurer, he was rendering service
to only one Government. The
gratuity received by him under the GSIS Act, as amended, was obviously in
consideration of his entire services rendered to the Government as of his
retirement in 1958. It is equally clear
that the retirement benefits he claims under section 1 of Act 2589 are in
consideration of the same services.
Evidently, if he were allowed to receive full benefits under the Osmeña Retirement Law, in addition to the retirement
insurance benefits he had already received under the GSIS Act, he would receive
double pension for exactly the same services.
This eventuality would run roughshod over the well-settled rule that in
the absence of an express legal exception, pension and gratuity laws should be
so construed as to preclude any person from receiving double pension.[3]
In fine, although the appellant had established his right to gratuity
under Act 2589, when he opted to receive gratuity benefits under the GSIS Act,
he thereby waived the benefits available under the former law.
2. We agree with the lower
court that there is no statute which makes it obligatory for the Municipality to
pay out of its funds the gratuity which the appellant demands under Act
2589. The appellant, however, cites
sections 2184 and 2242(a) of the Revised Administrative Code and section 1 of
Rep. Act 2264.
Sec. 2184 of the Revised Administrative Code does indeed command
that two-thirds of the salary of the municipal treasurer be paid from municipal
funds and one-third thereof from provincial funds. But from this insufficient premise one cannot
derive the conclusion that the Municipality is duty bound to pay the appellant
the gratuity receivable under Act 2589, for section 4 of the said Act
designates in no uncertain terms the source of the sums necessary to implement
its provisions – i.e., the Insular (now the National) Treasury. Assuming therefore that the appellant is
additionally entitled to gratuity under Act 2589, this would be a financial
liability not of the Municipality but of the National Government.
Section 2242(a) of the Revised Administrative Code specifies the
duties of a municipal council, conformably with law, to fix the salaries of an
municipal officers and employees (except the treasurer and the teachers in the
public schools) and to provide for such expenditures as are necessary in the
proper conduct of the lawful activities of the various branches of the
municipal government. Verily, this
provision of law cannot avail the appellant any, since the payment of the
gratuity which he claims, as we have already stated, would by law be an obligation
of the National Treasury.
Section 1 of Rep. Act 2264 has no relevance in this case because
it merely requires a province, city, municipality and a regularly organized
municipal district to include in their respective budgets provisions for their
statutory and/or current contractual obligations. No statutory or decisional law supports the
position that the gratuity which the appellant claims is a statutory or current
contractual obligation of the Municipality.
3. The appellant has thus
failed to establish his cause of action.
We have searched in vain for any statutory provision on the basis of
which the Municipality may be compelled to pay the gratuity to which he claims
he is entitled under Act 2589. The lower
court did not therefore err in disallowing the writ of mandamus and the damages
prayed for by him, and in consequently dismissing his petition below.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment a quo is
affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
[1]
See Part II, no. 11(a) of the 1963 GSIS Handbook of Information.
[2]
“Sec. 4. Such sums as may be
necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act are hereby
appropriated out of any funds in the Insular Treasury not otherwise appropriated: x x x” (Act 2589; emphasis supplied).
[3]
See Borromeo vs. Government Service Insurance
System, G.R. No. L-11001, Nov. 23,
1960, citing 70 CJS, sec. 5, p. 429.