IN RE CLAIM OF CAR JUDGE ALFREDO L. NOEL FOR MONTHLY PENSION IN ADDITION TO FIVE-YEAR LUMP-SUM RETIREMENT PAY.

Judge Alfredo L. Noel of the Court of Agrarian Rela­tions reached
the age of seventy years on November 16, 1974. 
In his application for retirement, he stated that he had served the
government for nineteen years.

Clerk of Court Romeo D. Mendoza in his letter to the Government
Service Insurance System transmitting Judge Noel’s application for compulsory
retirement said that Judge Noel had more than eighteen years of creditable
service in the government.

He served the government continuously as city fiscal of Davao
City and CAR Judge from June 16, 1956 to Novem­ber 15, 1974, a period of 18
years and five months.

He was a temporary clerk in the House of Represen­tatives from
August 2 to September 30, 1926 (59 days). 
He served as a technical assistant in the National Assembly from July 1,
1939 to January 31, 1940 or for seven months. 
His total period of government service was 19 years and 59 days or, as
computed by the GSIS:  19.16393.

As his salary as CAR Judge was P42,400, he was entitled to a
five-year lump-sum payment of P212,000. 
De­ducting from that amount the unpaid premiums of P7,506, the balance
amounted to P204,500 which was paid to him on Feb­ruary 25 and June 6, 1975.

Last year, Judge Noel requested the GSIS to credit him with his
alleged service as clerk in the office of Assem­blyman Jose Ozamiz from July 1,
1936 to June 30, 1939, a period of three years.

The GSIS in a letter dated August 5, 1980 informed him that his
claim was disapproved because he failed to sub­mit his reconstructed record of
service on or before June 21, 1965, as required by Republic Act No. 3544 which
amended section 13-A of Commonwealth Act No. 186.

The GSIS said that appointment papers and other incontestable
proofs (not affidavits) would be sufficient to establish the claim for services
rendered to the government.

Judge Noel was informed that the disapproval of his claim was
final “considering that the alleged service is not reflected in
existing record of the Civil Service Commission”.

Not satisfied with the verdict of the GSIS, Judge Noel in his
letter to the Chief Justice dated February 24, 1981 pleaded that his alleged
three-year service in the office of Assemblyman Ozamiz be added to his
documented years of government service and that he be allowed to receive a
monthly pension as provided for in Republic Act No. 910.

He attached to his letter a carbon copy of the affidavit of
Lourdes H. Ozamiz dated July 8, 1980 wherein she swore that Judge Noel worked
in the office of her husband from July 1, 1936 to June 30, 1939.

We agree with the GSIS that Judge Noel’s alleged three-year
service in the office of Assemblyman Ozamiz, which is not reflected in the
records of the Civil Service Commission, cannot be credited in his favor.

Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2614, 4627
and 5095 and by Presidential Decree No. 1438, provides:

“SECTION 1.  When a
Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, a judge of Court of
First Instance, Industrial Relations, Agrarian Relations, Tax Appeals, Juvenile
and Domestic Relations, or a city or municipal judge who has rendered at least
twenty years service in the judi­ciary or in any other branch of the
government, or in both, (a) retires for having attained the age of seventy
years, or (b) resigns by reason of his incapacity to discharge the duties of
his office, he shall receive during the residue of his na­tural life, in the
manner hereinafter provided, the salary which he was receiving at the time of
his retirement or resignation.  x x
x.”

“SEC. 2.  In case of a
Justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals or a judge of the Court of
First Instance, Circuit Criminal Court, Agrarian Relations, Tax Appeals,
Juvenile and Domestic Relations, city or municipal court, or any other court
hereafter established, dies while in actual service, his heirs shall receive a
lump sum of five years’ gratuity computed on the basis of the highest monthly
salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, living and
representation allowances received by him as such Jus­tice or Judges, if by
reason of his length of service in the Government he was already entitled to
the benefits of this Act.  The same
benefits provided for in this section shall be extended to any incumbent
Justice of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, or a judge of the Court
of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Court, Agrarian Relations, Tax Appeals,
Juvenile and Domestic Relations, or city or municipal court, or any other court
hereafter established, as the case may be, who, without having attained the
length of service required in Section one hereof, shall have to retire upon
reaching the age of sixty-five years, or upon other causes, such as illness or
permanent physical disability, to be certified to by the tribunal to which the
Justice concerned belongs, or by the Supreme Court in the case of an incumbent
judge of the Court of First Instance, and other similar courts of record, or a
city or municipal judge, which render him incapacitated to continue in his
position.”

“SEC. 3.  Upon
retirement, a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, of a
judge of the Court of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Court, Agrarian
Relations, Tax Appeals, Juvenile and Domestic Relations, city or municipal
court, or any other court hereafter established shall be auto­matically
entitled to a lump sum of five 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 thereafter upon survival after the expiration of this period of
five years, to a further annuity payable monthly during the resi­due of his
natural life equivalent to the amount of the monthly salary he was receiving on
the date of his retirement; Provided, however, That if the reason
for the retirement be any permanent disability contracted during his incumbency
in office and prior to the date of retirement he shall receive only a gratuity
equiva­lent to ten years’ salary and allowances aforementioned with no further
annuity payable monthly during the rest of the retiree’s natural life.”

Republic Act No. 910 requires that a judge, to be entitled to a
monthly pension or annuity after the expiration of five years from the date of
his retirement, should have rendered “at least twenty years service in the
judiciary or in any other branch of the Government or in both”.

If he has not served the government for at least twenty years,
his retirement pay amounts only to a lump-sum payment of five years’ salary
based upon the highest annual salary that he has received.  (Allowances are included under Presidential
Decree No. 1438 which took effect on June 10, 1978.)

Considering that Judge Noel’s length of government service falls
short of twenty years, the Court, much to its regret, cannot authorize the
payment to him of a monthly annuity.

WHEREFORE, his claim is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez,
Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., on leave.

Teehankee, J., no part.