JUDGE RODOLFO T. ALLARDE, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF MUNTINLUPA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus seeking
to annul and set aside the decisions dated June 5, 1991, November 5, 1991,
August 20, 1991 and January 27, 1992 of the Commission on Audit (COA) which
denied petitioner’s request for inclusion of the monthly allow­ance he had been
receiving from the Municipality of Muntinlupa as Metropolitan Trial Court
Judge, as part of his retirement benefits.

Petitioner Rodolfo T. Allarde was the Presiding Judge of Branch
LXXX, Metropolitan Trial Court in Mun­tinlupa, Metro Manila, until his courtesy
resignation was accepted on January 13, 1987. He applied for re­tirement under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1438, which this Court approved on July 11, 1989.

In computing his total retirement pay, the Govern­ment Service
Insurance System (GSIS) included the amount of P240,000.00 representing the
five-year lump sum of the P4,000.00-monthly allowance which he had been
receiving from the Municipality of Muntinlupa during his incumbency therein as
judge, provided said lump sum of P240,000.00 should be charged to the funds of
the municipality pursuant to Section 30 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 866 and subject
to the availability of funds. On April
16, 1990, the Sangguniang Bayan of Muntinlupa, by Resolution No. 90-145,
appropriated and awarded the amount of P240,000.00 in favor of the petitioner.

However, petitioner’s claim for payment of that additional
retirement benefit reached the Metro Manila Authority which denied it on the
ground that:

“x x x the Commission on Audit who is the final authority on
questions of money claims against the government has already ruled (in similar
cases as the one at bar) that (like) allowances formerly granted you by the
Municipal Government of Muntinlupa, by the very nature and intent of the grant,
‘are expense items not to be equated with compensation for purposes of
computing retirement benefits.’” (p. 49, Rollo.)

On April 4, 1991, the petitioner filed his claim with the
Commission on Audit (COA). On June 5,
1991, the COA rendered Decision No. 1877 denying the claim.

On September 9, 1991, petitioner filed a Memorandum/Motion for
Reconsideration of the decision, but the COA issued Decision No. 1983 dated
November 5, 1991, reiterating its denial of the petitioner’s claim.

A second
reconsideration met the same fate (COA Decision No. 2159, dated January 27,
1992). Hence, this petition for review.

The sole issue in
this case is: whether or not the
P4,000.00 monthly allowance that the petitioner had been receiving from the
Municipality of Muntinlupa should be included in the computation of his
retirement benefits under Republic Act 910, as amended by Presiden­tial Decree
No. 1438.

Petitioner’s claim is anchored on Section 3 of Republic Act
910. An Act Providing For The
Retirement of Justices and All Judges in the Judiciary, as amended by P.D. No.
1438 which 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 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.”

As clearly specified in the law, only transporta­tion, living and
representation allowances may be in­cluded in the computation of the first
five-year lump sum retirement benefits for members of the judiciary.

It is an elementary principle of statutory con­struction that
where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous, the
meaning and intention of the legislature should be determined from the lan­guage
employed, and where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for
construction (Provincial Board of Cebu vs. Presiding Judge of Cebu, CFI, Branch
IV, 171 SCRA 1).

Accordingly, the provisions of Section 3, P.D. No. 1438, which
are clear and unambiguous, should be given their plain and natural
meaning. Inasmuch as the law limits the
computation of the lump sum of 5 years’ gratuity to “the highest monthly salary
plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, living and repre­sentation
allowances that the judge was receiving on the date of his retirement,” it
is understood that other allowances are excluded, Inclusio unius est
exclusio alterius.

The petitioner failed to prove that the P4,000.00 additional
monthly allowance that he was receiving from the Municipal Government of
Muntinlupa was a representa­tion, living or transportation allowance, for as
indi­cated in the sample
disbursement voucher that he used to fill up whenever he claimed such
allowance, the amount was in the nature of reimbursement for expenses
which Judge Allarde certified “were incurred by me while performing my
duties.” (p. 52, Rollo.)

The pertinent observations of the COA in its deci­sion dated June
5, 1991 are quoted as follows:

“Upon a close scrutiny and examination of PD 1438, we note
that the allowances contemplated therein are ‘transportation, living and
representation allowances’ being granted to Justices and Judges from national
and/or local funds as authorized by existing laws, rules and regulations which
constitute integral part of their remuneration. (Vide. WHEREAS clauses) That being so, these allowances
are deemed as commutable in character and, hence, partake of the nature of
additional compensation. For this
reason, they are included in the computation of the retirement benefits of
Justices and Judges as provided in the said law.

“In your case, however, it appears that the allowances you
have been collecting from the Municipali­ty of Muntinlupa during your stint
therein as Municipal Trial Court Judge were non-commutable or reimbursable in
nature, let alone the fact that there is no indication as to whether they were
transportation, living or representation allowances. This conclusion can be readily drawn from the copy of a sample
voucher forming part of the set of papers accompanying your present claim
whereby you sought to collect ‘payment of the allowance of P4,000.00 a month for
the period January 1-31, 1985’ from the Munici­pality of Muntinlupa, and
whereon you had to ‘certify that the expenses were incurred by me (you)
while performing my (your) duties covering the period ‘heretofore cited,’
thereby signifying the reimbursable nature thereof. (Emphasis and words in parenthesis ours) Evidently then, the
allowances that you now seek to collect as part of your retirement gratuity are
expense items that cannot be equated with salary or compensation. On this score, it was patent error for the
GSIS to identi­fy such allowances as ‘RATA’ and to include the aggregate amount
thereof corresponding to a 60-month period in its computation of your
retirement gratuity as the local share of the Municipality of Muntinlupa.”
(p. 52, Rollo.)

Letter of Instruction No. 1418 which authorizes local governments to pay additional
allowances to judges of the courts within their territorial jurisdiction,
limits the amount of such allowance and does not provide that it shall be
treated as part of the judge’s remuner­ation in computing his retirement
benefits.

“WHEREAS, some local govern­ment units are ready,
willing and able to pay additional allowances to Judges of the
various courts within their respective territorial juris­diction;

“xxx               xxx                          xxx.

“3. The
allowances provided in this letter shall be borne exclu­sively by the National
Government. However, provincial city
and munici­pal governments may pay additional allowances to the members
and personnel of the Judiciary assigned in their respective areas out of avail­able
local funds but not to exceed P1,500.00; Provided, that in Metropolitan
Manila, the city and municipal governments therein may pay additional
allowances not exceeding P3,000.00. (Emphasis ours).” (pp. 42-43, Rollo.)

As observed by the Solicitor General the use of the word
“may” signifies that the allowance may not be demanded as a matter of
right, but is entirely dependent on the will of the municipality concerned (p.
43, Rollo). It should be treated as an
honorarium, an amount that is “given not as a matter of obligation but in
appreciation for services rendered, a voluntary donation in consideration for
services which admit of no compensation in money” (Santiago vs. Commission
on Audit, 199 SCRA 128, 130).

As the Solicitor General aptly observed: such additional allowance does not
constitute an integral part of the judge’s remuneration for it may or may not
be given by the local government and it is dependent on the liberality of the
latter. If said allowance were to be
included in the computation of the retirement bene­fits of judges, the result
would be inequality and disparity in their retirement benefits. For there are rich municipalities that can
give generous allowances to the judges of the courts within their territorial
juris­diction, and there are poorer municipalities that can give less
substantial amounts or none at all. The
result would be an unseemly jockeying among the trial judges for assignment in
the wealthy municipalities, and injustice to those who may be assigned to the
less affluent regions, for while they may have the same rank and perform
essentially the same tasks, their more fortunate colleagues would be enjoying
more benefits. The retirement law was
not intended to deal unequally and unfairly with the judges.

WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the
decision of the Commission on Audit, the petition for review is hereby
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.