IN RE: AMOUNT OF THE MONTHLY PENSION OF JUDGES AND JUSTICES STARTING FROM THE SIXTH YEAR OF THEIR RETIREMENT AND AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE INITIAL FIVE-YEAR PERIOD OF RETIREMENT.

The matter of the financial components of the monthly pension to
be paid retired judges and justices was brought before the Court en banc
by the Office of the Court Administrator in a memorandum filed by Court Administrator
Meynardo A. Tiro on February 14, 1990 and in an urgent
memorandum filed on August 16, 1990.

Republic Act No. 910, otherwise
known as the Special Retirement Law of Judges and Justices and which took
effect in 1935, granted a monthly pension for life to a judge or justice
qualified to retire from the service. 
Under Section 3 thereof, upon retirement the retiree shall receive a
five-year lump sum and upon survival of the five-year period, the retiree shall
receive a monthly pension during the rest of his natural life.  Under Republic Act No. 5095, which amended
Republic Act No. 910 and took effect on June
17, 1967, the amount of the monthly pension was fixed at the value
of the monthly salary of the retiree at the time of retirement.

On June 10, 1978,
Republic Act No. 910 was again amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438.  However, it appears that two versions of said decree were published in the Official Gazette, although both were
dated June 10, 1978 and
bore exactly the same number.

In Volume 74 of the Official Gazette, No. 30, Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1438 reads in part as
follows:

“Section 1.  Section 2 and 3 of R.A. 910 as amended by
R.A. 5095 are hereby amended further to read as follows:

x        x         x

“Section 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:  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.”

The above-quoted provision appears exactly as worded in the Vital Documents on the
Declaration of Martial Law published
by the Malacañang Records Office.

However, in Volume 74 of the Official Gazette, No. 41, Section 3 of Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 1438, provides:

“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 and 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 expiration of
this period of five years, to 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” (Emphasis
supplied).

It will be noted that the
version of Presidential Decree No. 1438 appearing in the earlier
publication of the Official Gazette (74 O.G. No. 30) is silent as to the
components of the monthly pension payable starting with the sixth year of
retirement.

It is significant,
however, that based on the copy of Presidential Decree No. 1438 as published in 74 O.G. No. 30 and
in the aforesaid publication of Vital
Documents on the Declaration of Martial Law, since 1978 the Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS)
had always computed the first five-year
lump sum retirement as follows: 
(1) highest salary, plus
(2) highest representation and transportation allowances (RATA) and longevity
pay at the rate of five percent (5%) additional for every five (5) years of
continuous service as a judge or justice.  After the five-year lump sum period, that is,
on the sixth year of retirement, the GSIS computed the monthly pension for the rest of the retiree’s natural life
as follows:  (1) highest salary, plus (2)
highest RATA, plus (3) longevity pay. 
Parenthetically, longevity pay was granted by Section 42, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 starting in
1983 and, by the Court’s resolution, is considered part of the salary.

The present question arose when the Commission on Audit (COA), thru its corporate auditor assigned to
the GSIS, issued a memorandum dated December 6, 1989, addressed to Mrs. Lourdes
Patag, Vice-President, Social Insurance Group II, of
the GSIS, informing the latter that, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1438
amending Section 3 of Republic Act No. 910, after the expiration of the initial
five-year period of retirement, that is, at the beginning of the sixth year of retirement, the monthly
pension of judges and justices
shall consist only of the monthly salary which the retiree was receiving on the date of his retirement.  In other words, the representation and
transportation allowances shall not form part of the monthly pension of a
retiree.  Obviously, the COA was
relying on the version of
Presidential Decree No. 1438 as published in 74 O.G. No. 41.

In his aforesaid memorandum, Court Administrator Tiro recommends that the GSIS be allowed to
continue paying the monthly pension consisting of the highest salary, highest
longevity pay, and highest representation and transportation allowances (RATA)
which, as aforesaid, had always been the bases and components of the pension
payments it had been making
since 1978 when the amendatory decree took effect.  He invokes the liberal interpretation of the
law adopted by the court and the reasons given therefor
in “In Re:  Application for Life
Pension Under Rep. Act 910, RUPERTO G. MARTIN, Applicant,” (A.M. No.
747-Ret., July 13, 1990), the decision wherein entitled former Justice Ruperto G. Martin “to receive a monthly pension for the
rest of his natural life, as provided by law, based on his highest monthly
salary plus the highest
monthly aggregate of transportation, living and representation allowances he was receiving on the date of his retirement” (Emphasis ours).  It
will be recalled that Justice Martin was granted a ten-year lump sum
gratuity by reason of permanent disability under the aforequoted
provisions of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 1438, which even provides for “no further annuity payable
monthly during the rest of the
retiree’s life.”

The most that can be said for the hereinbefore quoted provisions
of the second version of Presidential Decree
No. 1438 subsequently published
in 74 O.G. No. 41 and cited by the
COA is that it gives the seeming impression of having impliedly repealed
in part or amended the first version of the same decree published in 74 O.G. No. 30.  Aside from the well-known rule which
disfavors implied repeals, the indisputable fact that both versions of
said decree were singularly dated June
10, 1978 and were identified by the very same number would
necessarily reject such a construction. 
Had the issuing authority
intended such a repeal or modification, an express statement to effect or a different number for the
supposed repealing decree or even
a subsequent date of effectivity therefor
could have been resorted to with facility.

Furthermore, it is both
unknown and unclear as to why one version was published ahead of the other, and
not the other way around.  Hence, to
draw any conclusion from what appears as a mechanically adopted sequential
printing would necessarily be an unwarranted inference drawn from an obvious
uncertainty.  When we pause and consider
the purpose and the intended beneficiaries of said pension scheme, we cannot in conscience
thereby subject their rights to such a tenuous thread of circumstance.

We find it more logical, just and equitable, under the circumstances, to hold that
the monthly pension for retired
judges and justices starting on
the sixth year of their retirement should include the highest monthly aggregate
of transportation, living and representation allowances the retiree was
receiving on the date of his retirement. 
This is definitely more in keeping with and gives substance to the
elementary rule of statutory construction that, being remedial in character,
retirement laws should be liberally construed and administered in favor of the
persons intended to be benefited and all doubts as to the intent of the law
should be resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve its humanitarian purposes (Bautista vs. Auditor General, etc.,
et al., 104 Phil. 428 [1958]; Ortiz vs. Commission on Elections, et al., 162
SCRA 812 [1988]).  Retirement laws are
intended to entice competent men and women to enter the government service and
to permit them to retire therefrom with relative
security, not only for those who
have retained their vigor but, more so, for those who have been incapacitated
by illness or accident (See Abad Santos vs. Auditor
General, et al., 79 Phil. 176 [1947]).

We are, therefore, firmly convinced and so rule that the present
computation heretofore adopted by the GSIS and followed for around twelve (12)
years now, without any objection or reprobation by the then lawmaking authority
and any other functionary or entity, is correct and consonant with the avowed
policy of the law on retirement, especially when it is considered that a
pension is a form of deferred compensation for services performed.

WHEREFORE, the Government Service Insurance System is
hereby directed to continue implementing Republic Act No. 910, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1438, in the same manner and on the same bases of
computation as it has done since 1978, so that oh the sixth year of retirement
the monthly pension to be paid to the retiree shall consist of the highest
salary, the highest longevity pay, and the highest representation and
transportation allowances (RATA) the retiree was receiving on the date of
retirement.

Let copies of this resolution be
furnished to both the Commission on Audit and the Department of Budget and
Management.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grino-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Fernan, C.J., Paras,
and Feliciano, JJ.,
on leave.