(RE:  RETIREMENT BENEFITS OF THE LATE CITY JUDGE ALEJANDRO GALANG, JR.)

The late City Judge Alejandro Galang, Jr., who died of
“Metatastic Retroperitorial Angiosarcoma” – a terminal disease, on
August 29, 1979, while in the service, filed two days before his death, or on
August 27, 1979, with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) an
application, dated August 25, 1979, for total and permanent disability benefits
“under the provisions of his insurance policy.”

After his death, his widow, Ramona T. Galang, filed with this
Court on November 27, 1979, a similar application for retirement benefits under
“Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Act No. 5095,” docketed
as Administrative Matter No. 1270-Ret. 
We approved on December 6, 1979 the payment of a five-year lump sum
gratuity of P260,160.00 due the deceased.

In the meanwhile, the application for retirement with the GSIS
was approved by it “effective August 28, 1979.” In a letter, dated
January 23, 1980, the Manager of the Survivorship Benefits Department informed
the Court, through the Court Administrator, that Judge Galang was found to be
totally and permanently disabled by the System “not earlier than August
28, 1979” and requested that the balance of P260,160.00 be remitted to the
System so that Judge Galang’s ten-year lump sum benefits may be paid to his
surviving legal heirs.

By resolution dated February 14, 1980, the Court resolved to deny
the payment of ten-year lump sum retirement benefits to the surviving legal
heirs of Judge Galang and to advise the GSIS accordingly.

Submitted now for resolution is a Motion for Reconsideration
filed by the widow based mainly on the grounds that the opinion of the GSIS on
the matter, though not binding on the Court, should be accorded strong
persuasive effect; that the filing of the application directly with the GSIS
was simply an error of procedure; and out of humanitarian considerations, it
appearing that the late Judge Galang discharged his official duties under very
difficult circumstances and left a widow and eight minor children one of whom
is physically disabled.

In a subsequent Motion, the widow requested for time to submit
Judge Galang’s complete service record before resolution of her plea for
reconsideration.

Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 1057,
1797, 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.  And 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 of muni­cipal judge has attained the age of sixty years
and has rendered at least twenty years service in the Government, the last five
of which shall have been continuously rendered in the judiciary, he shall
likewise be entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his natural
life, also in the manner herein­after provided; the which he was then
receiving.  x x x “

“Sec. 2.  In case 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 of Judge, if by
reason of his length of service in the Government he was already entitled to
the benefit 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, 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 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.”

It is clear from the aforequoted Section 3 in relation to Section
1, that to be entitled to the lump sum payment of the gratuity equivalent to
ten years’ salary and allowances, a member of the Judiciary should have retired
by reason of permanent disability contracted during his incumbency in office
and prior to the date of retirement and should have rendered, at the least,
twenty (20) years service in the Judiciary or in any other branch of the
Government, or both.

The service record of the late Judge Galang shows that his
government service commenced on August 1, 1969 to April 16, 1972 (2 years, 8
months, 15 days) as Special Assistant to Secretary Maceda, Office of the
President; then from April 17, 1972 to August 28, 1979 (7 years, 14 months, 11
days) as City Judge, City Court of Manila, adding up to a period of 10 years
and 26 days of government service. 
Additional proof of his government service submitted by his widow
consisted of certified photographic copies of his appointments as Secretary I,
Public Service Commission from October 7, 1958 to June 30, 1959 (8 months, 23
days), and from July 1, 1959 to September 30, 1959 (3 months); certi­fication
and affidavits to the effect that he was employed as Legal Officer III, Bureau
of Customs from October 5, 1964 to November 30, 1966 (2 years, 25 days), or, an
additional period of 2 years, 11 months and 48 days or 3 years and 18
days.  Thus, the total period of
government service of the late Judge Galang is only thirteen (13) years, one
(1) month and fourteen (14) days, which is far short of the 20 years
required by law.

Judge Galang’s case properly falls under Section 2 of the law, as
amended, supra, which grants a five-year lump sum gratuity to the heirs
of a member of the Judiciary, who dies while in actual service, or who, without
having attained the required twenty years service under Section 1, shall have
to retire upon reaching the age of 65 years or upon other causes such as
illness or permanent physical disability. 
Judge Galang’s heirs have already received the five-year lump sum
gratuity to which he is entitled.

ACCORDINGLY, considering that Judge Galang’s length of
service in the Government falls short of the requisite twenty years, we hereby
deny, much to our regret, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by his widow,
Ramona T. Galang.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez,
Guerrero, Abad Santos, and De Castro,
JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., no part.

Teehankee, J., see brief
concurrence.