RE: APPLICATION FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF FORMER JUDGE GREGORIO G. PINEDA, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, BRANCH XXI, PASIG, METRO MANILA.

These are petitions or motions for reconsideration filed by
retired Judges asking that they be granted gratuity and/or retirement benefits
under Republic Act No. 910, as amended, in addition to, or in lieu of, the
benefits under Republic Act No. 1616 or Presidential Decree No. 1146.

The petitioners/movants want to take
advantage of the precedents in Administrative Matter No. 5460-Ret., Re:  Application for Gratuity Benefits of
Associate Justice Efren I. Plana,
March 24, 1988 and this Court’s May 15, 1989 decision in Administrative Matter
No. 6484-Ret. Re:  Application for
Retirement under Rep. Act No. 910 of Associate Justice Ramon B. Britanico of the Intermediate Appellate Court.

Judge Gregorio Pineda of the former Court of First Instance, Pasig, in Adm. Matter No. 2076-Ret., was granted retirement
benefits effective January 17, 1983 when he resigned pursuant to the judiciary
reorganization under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and was not reappointed.  He was 59 years, 3 months and 5 days old with
19 years, 11 months and 21 days of government service when he resigned.  As he was short by 9 months to complete the optional retirement age of 60,
and short by 9 days to complete the 20 years required length of government
service, he claims that his accumulated vacation leave of 395-1/2 days and sick
leave of 122-1/2 days can cover the deficiency of a total of 279 days to meet
the retirement age of 60.

Judge Paterno
A. Montesclaros of the Municipal Trial Court, Cebu City in Administrative Matter No. 5794-Ret., was
granted gratuity retirement benefits under Rep. Act No. 1616 effective February
4, 1987 but desires a conversion of the benefits to those under Rep. Act No.
910.  The Court denied the request on November
12, 1987.  He now moves for a reconsideration of that denial. 
Judge Montesclaros wants the Britanico ruling
applied to his case.  The
resignation of Justice Britanico was placed in the same category as justices or
judges who, after having rendered at least 20 years of service in the judiciary
or in any other branch of the government, or in both, have to “resign by
reason of their incapacity to discharge the duties of their office.” In
his case, Justice Britanico’s service in the
judiciary was terminated on July 31,
1986 through his courtesy
resignation tendered before President Corazon C. Aquino
pursuant to Proclamation No. 1 dated February
25, 1986.  At the time of his
resignation, Justice Britanico was 59 years, 8 months
and 19 days old with more than 36 years of government service.  Judge Montesclaros
now claims that his case falls under the same class as Justice Britanico.  He was 56
years, 10 months and 19 days old with 20 years, 6 months and 19 days of
government service.

Judge Avelino Q. de Lara of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Batanes, in
Administrative Matter No. 6789-Ret., requests a conversion of the benefits
granted to him under Rep. Act No. 1616 to those under Rep. Act 910 in view of
the Britanico ruling.  He resigned pursuant to Proclamation No. 1 of
President Aquino. 
His service in the judiciary was terminated and retirement benefits were
granted effective January 31, 1987.  He was 66 years, 2 months and 21 days old
with 31 years and 4 months of government service.  However, he had only 4 years and 4 days of
service continuously rendered in the judiciary.

Judge Juan B. Montecillo of the RTC,
Branch 27, Naga City, in Administrative Matter No.
5717-Ret., was at first granted disability retirement benefits under
Presidential Decree No. 1146, effective January 17, 1983 when he tendered his
courtesy resignation before former President Ferdinand Marcos pursuant to Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129.  (Resolution dated May 28,
1987, Adm. Matter No. 526-Ret.) However, he was reappointed on December 26, 1985 as RTC Judge.  Pursuant to Proclamation No. 1 of President Aquino, he again tendered his courtesy resignation on January 30, 1987.  In a resolution of this Court on April 2,
1987 in Adm. Matter No. 5717-Ret., when his application for
disability/retirement benefits was not yet ruled upon, he was allowed to retire
under Pres. Decree No. 1146, instead of Rep. Act No. 910 effective February 1,
1987.

Hence, at the time of his
second application for retirement benefits, he was 61 years, 7 months and 8
days old, with 26 years, 8 months and 17 days of government service but the
last 5 years of which were not continuously rendered.  He now requests that he be allowed to retire
under Rep. Act No. 910.

Judge Clemente
D. Paredes of the RTC, Malolos,
Bulacan, in Administrative Matter No. 5698-Ret., was
granted gratuity benefits effective February 1, 1987, under Rep. Act No. 1616
as approved in a Court resolution dated October 27, 1988.  The Court dismissed the administrative cases
against him (Adm. Matter Nos. R-148-RTJ and R-334-RTJ) on April
29, 1987 and September
13, 1988 and then
granted the benefits under Rep. Act No. 1616. 
Paredes resigned as judge of the RTC, Branch
7, Malolos, Bulacan
pursuant to Proclamation No. 1 of President Aquino.  He was 54 years, 2 months and 8 days old at
the time of his retirement with 27 years, 5 months and 22 days of government
service.  He now prays for the conversion
of the approved application for gratuity benefits under Rep. Act No. 1616 to benefits available under
Rep. Act No. 910.

Judge Nicolas A. Gerochi of the RTC, Makati in Administrative Matter No. 5621-Ret.,
appeals to us for the conversion of his approved application for gratuity
benefits under Rep. Act No. 1616 to retirement benefits under Rep. Act No.
910.  He wants to fall under the Britanico ruling.  Gerochi resigned
pursuant to Proclamation No. 1 of President Aquino
effective November 4, 1986.  His
application for gratuity benefits was
approved only after the resolution
by this Court of the administrative case filed against him together with other
judges for erroneous imposition of penalties. 
(Adm. Matter No. 226, January 20, 1987) At the time of
his resignation, Gerochi was 55 years, 7 months and 2
days old with 29 years, 4 months and 24 days of government service, the last 11
years and 19 days of which were continuously rendered in the judiciary.

Section 1, paragraph (c)
of Republic Act No. 1616 gives the following benefits to a retiring judge or
justice:

“c)     Retirement is
likewise allowed to a member, regardless of age, who has rendered at least
twenty years of service.  The benefit
shall, in addition to the return of his personal contributions plus interest,
be only a gratuity equivalent to one month salary for every year of service,
based on the highest rate received, not to exceed twenty four months.  This gratuity is payable by the employer or
office concerned which is hereby authorized to provide the necessary appropriation
or pay the same from savings in its appropriations.

Meanwhile, Pres. Decree No. 1146 (the Revised Government Service
Insurance Act of 1977), under the provisions of which one of the petitioners
herein, Judge Montecillo, was allowed to receive
retirement benefits after his second resignation from government service,
provides that an old-age pension shall be paid to a member who has at least
fifteen (15) years of service, is at least sixty (60) years of age, and is
separated from the service.  (Section 11,
Pres. Decree No. 1146) Section 12 (a) states that:

Old Age Pension. – (a) A member entitled to old-age
pension shall receive the basic monthly pension for life but in no case a
period less than five years; Provided, – That, the member shall have the option
to convert the basic monthly salary pensions for the first five years into a
lump sum as defined in this Act; x x x.”

The basic monthly pension is equal to a certain percentage, i.e.
37-1/2% of the revalued average monthly compensation, plus 2-1/2% of the
revalued average monthly compensation for each year of service in excess of
fifteen years, but the basic monthly pension shall not exceed 90% of the
average monthly compensation. (Section 9, Pres. Decree No. 1146)

The petitioners-judges now want to be entitled to retirement
benefits under Rep. Act No. 910, where each of them would receive:  (a) a lump sum of five [5] years gratuity
computed on the basis of the highest monthly
salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, living and
representation allowances he was receiving on the date of his retirement; and
(b) thereafter upon survival after the expiration of the five-year period, to a
further lifetime annuity payable monthly equivalent to the amount of the
monthly salary he was receiving on the date of his retirement.  (Section 3, Rep. Act No. 910)

Indeed, petitioners would
receive higher benefits should their retirement be governed by Rep. Act. No. 910, as amended. 
However, a close scrutiny
into the service record as well
as the conduct of each of the judges is necessary to determine whether or not
the benefits under Rep. Act. No. 910, as amended shall be extended to them in
lieu of those approved under Rep. Act No. 1616 or Pres. Decree No. 1146.

The rule is that
retirement laws are construed liberally in favor of the retiring employee.  However, when in the interest of liberal
construction the Court allows seeming exceptions to fixed rules for certain
retired Judges or Justices, there are ample reasons behind each grant of an
exception.  The crediting of accumulated
leaves to make up for lack of required age or length of service is not done
indiscriminately.  It is always on a case
to case basis.

In some instances, the
lacking element — such as the time to reach an age limit or comply with length
of service — is de minimis.  It
could be that the amount of accumulated leave credits is tremendous in
comparison to the lacking period of time.

More important, there
must be present an essential factor before an application under the Plana or Britanico
rulings may be granted.  The Court allows
a making up or compensating for lack of required age or service only if
satisfied that the career of the retiree was marked by competence, integrity,
and dedication to the public service; it was only a bowing to policy
considerations and an acceptance of the realities of political will which
brought him or her to premature retirement.

Where a Judge resigns to
avoid the messy embarrassments of an investigation of poor performance or
alleged anomalies or while never having been disciplined for want of civic-minded witnesses, his record is
nonetheless marred by notoriety or scandal, or where a superior court was
constrained to move fast in order to reverse or undo his rash orders and
suspicious indiscretions, obviously neither the Plana
nor Britanico rulings will apply.  There are other instances when a Judge must
content himself with the retirement benefits under less generous
legislation.  For those who were retired
pursuant to the 1983 reorganization, similar considerations are taken
into account.

It should be noted that
the reorganization of the judiciary in 1983 was declared valid by this Court in
De La Llana v. Alba
(112 SCRA 294 [1982]).  The
non-reappointment of certain Judges as a result of the reorganization was the
result of careful deliberation. 
Executive Order No. 611 created a Presidential Committee on Judicial
Reorganization.  A committee to screen
the records of Judges to be appointed or reappointed was constituted.

The Court in De La Llana
stated:

“They ignore the categorical language of this provision:  The Supreme Court shall submit to the
President, within thirty (30) days from the date of the effectivity
of this act, a staffing pattern for all courts constituted pursuant to this Act
which shall be the basis of the implementing order to be issued by the
President in accordance, with the immediately succeeding section.  (Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, Section 43) x x x.  In the
meanwhile, the existing inferior courts affected continue functioning as
before, ‘until the completion of the reorganization provided in this Act as
declared by the President.  Upon such
declaration, the said courts shall be deemed automatically abolished and the
incumbents thereof shall cease to hold office.’ (Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, Section 44) There is no ambiguity.  The incumbents of the courts thus
automatically abolished ‘shall cease to hold office.’ No fear need be
entertained by incumbents whose length of service, quality of performance, and
clean record justify their being named anew, (This Court is ready with such a
list to be furnished the President) in legal contemplation without any
interruption in the continuity of their service.  (In the language of par. XI of the Proposed
Guidelines for Judicial Reorganization: 
‘The services of those not separated shall be
deemed uninterrupted.  In such cases,
efficiency, integrity, length of service and other relevant factors shall be
considered.’) It is equally reasonable to assume that from the ranks of
lawyers, either in the government service, private practice, or law professors
will come the new appointees.  x x
x.” (id. at pp. 335-337)

The Court explained in the decision’s footnotes that it “is
ready with such a list (of Judges recommended for re-appointment) to be
furnished the President.” (Footnote No. 97 at p. 336).  It also added the relevant factors to be
considered.  If the Court did not include
a Judge in its list or if the
President did not appoint a Judge
included in the list of the Court, it is an indication that the relevant
factors were considered and the Judge was found wanting.

The Court has carefully gone over the history of the petitioners/movants in these cases. 
On the basis of one or more of the reasons given above, it finds them
not entitled to unqualifiedly avail of the privileges given under the Plana and Britanico rulings.

WHEREFORE, the applications of the petitioners for
retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 910 are hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.