LYDIA M. PROFETA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing a
portion of the decision of the Office of the President, dated 23 October 1991,
declaring petitioner as compulsorily retired as of 15 October 1991 and the resolution dated 31 January 1992 denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of said decision.

The antecedents are the following:

Petitioner, Dr. Lydia M. Profeta, served as Executive Dean of the
Rizal Technological Colleges from 24 October 1974 to 15 October 1978. From 16 October 1978 to 30 April 1979,
petitioner was the appointed Acting President of said College until her promotion
to President of the same college on 1 May 1979.

After the 1986 EDSA revolution or on 5 March 1986, petitioner
filed her courtesy resignation as President of the Rizal Technological Colleges
and the same was accepted on 21 March 1986. A day before the acceptance of her courtesy resignation, petitioner
applied for sick leave.

On 4 November 1988, petitioner was appointed Acting President of
Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology
(hereinafter referred to as EARIST) and was thereafter appointed its President
on 29 March 1989.

After reaching the age of sixty-five (65) years on 16 June 1989,
petitioner inquired from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) as to
whether she may be allowed to extend her services with the government as
President of EARIST beyond the age of sixty-five (65) years, to enable her to
avail of the old-age pension retirement benefits under PD 1146 (Revised
Government Service Insurance Act of 1977). In answer to her query, petitioner was advised by the GSIS to return to
the service until she shall have fulfilled the fifteen (15) years service
requirement pursuant to Section 11 of PD 1146, to qualify for the old-age
pension retirement plan. The GSIS
declared that petitioner was not yet eligible to retire under PD 1146, as she
had not rendered the sufficient number of years of service on the date of her
supposed retirement on 16 June 1989 and that her creditable service was only
twelve (12) years and two (2) months. As things stood, she could only claim one hundred percent (100%) of her
average monthly compensation for every year of creditable service or to a
refund of her premium contributions with the GSIS.^[1]

On 6 October 1989, as
recommended by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Secretary
and the Board of Trustees of EARIST, President Aquino, through Deputy Executive
Secretary Magdangal B. Elma, extended the term of petitioner as President of
EARIST until she shall have completed the required fifteen (15) years of
service after reaching the age of sixty five (65) years on the date of her
normal retirement on 16 June 1989 or for an additional period of two (2) years,
seven (7) months and twelve (12) days.^[2]

In March 1990, the EARIST Faculty and Employees Union filed an
administrative complaint against petitioner before the Office of the President,
for her alleged irregular appointment and for graft and corrupt practices. In a memo­randum, dated 16 August 1990, the
Office of the President furnished petitioner a copy of the complaint with a
direc­tive to file an answer thereto with the DECS Secretary, who was duly
authorized to conduct a formal investigation of the charges against
petitioner. Pending investigation of
the complaint, petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for a period
of ninety (90) days.^[3] After
serving the period of suspension, petitioner re-assumed her duties and
functions as President of EARIST.

In a letter dated 20 July 1990, DECS Secretary Carino recommended
the compulsory retirement of petitioner.^[4]

For the purpose of investigating the administrative charges
against petitioner,^[5]
an Ad-Hoc Committee was created by President Aquino on 12 February 1991. The parties filed their respective pleadings
and hearings in the case were conducted by the committee.

Pending resolution of   the
administrative charges against her, petitioner was detailed with the DECS
Central Office pursuant to a memorandum dated 13 February 1991 signed by Deputy
Executive Secretary Sarmiento III. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 40, seeking her reinstatement
as EARIST President. After
trial, said petition was dismissed. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari on 2
April 1991.^[6]

Petitioner likewise assailed her reassignment with the DECS
Central Office, before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). On 30 July 1991, the CSC denied petitioner’s
complaint. She moved for
reconsideration of said resolution but the same was denied on 3 December 1991,
which prompted petitioner to file a petition for certiorari before this
Court docketed as G.R. No. 103271. On 3
March 1992, this Court dismissed said petition.

After evaluating the evidence presented before the Ad-Hoc
Committee, in a decision^[7] dated
23 October 1991, the Office of the President dismissed the administrative
complaint against petitioner for lack of substantial evidence. In the same decision, the Office of the
President also declared petitioner as compulsorily retired from government service
as of 15 October 1991, holding that:

“x x x (I)f the aforesaid sick leave of 62 working days
(approximately 3 months) were to be added to the respondent’s creditable
service, together with the period of two (2) weeks which the respondent’s
counsel admits in his Memorandum the respondent had served as Professorial
Lecturer, the respondent should be considered as compulsorily retired as of
Oct. 15, 1991, having completed the required 15 years in the service on or
about the said date after reaching the age of 65.

Accordingly, the administrative charges against Dr. Lydia M.
Profeta for her alleged ‘irregular appointment and graft and corrupt practices’
are hereby dismissed. However, Dr.
Profeta is hereby considered as now compulsorily retired from the service as of
October 15, 1991, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(b) of
Presidential Decree No. 1146, having completed fifteen (15) years in the
government service on or about the said date after reaching the age of
sixty-five (65) on June 16, 1989.”^[8]

In a letter dated 23 October 1991, petitioner requested the GSIS
to determine the exact date of her retirement. On 5 November 1991, petitioner was advised by the GSIS that the exact
date of her retirement falls on 14 August 1992.^[9]

A motion for reconsideration was then filed by peti­tioner with
the Office of the President, assailing the portion of its decision declaring
her as compulsorily retired from the service as of 15 October 1991, alleging
that the said office has no jurisdiction over the issue of her compulsory
retirement from the government service.

In a resolution^[10]
dated 31 January 1992, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by
the Office of the President. In the
same resolution, the Office of the President clarified that there was an over
extension of petitioner’s period of service with the government by failure to
reckon with the sixty-two (62) working days during which petitioner went on
sick leave (from 20 March to 17 June 1986) and the period of two (2) weeks
during which petitioner served as Professorial Lecturer. In considering petitioner as compulsorily
retired as of 15 October 1991, the Office of the President held that it merely
resolved motu proprio to shorten by three-and-a-half
(3-1/2) months the extension granted to petitioner to complete the required fifteen
(15) years of service for purposes of retirement. It further declared that it is for the President to determine
whether or not petitioner could still continue as EARIST President despite her
exoneration from the adminis­trative charges filed against her.

Under Presidential Decree No. 1146 (Revised Government Insurance
Act of 1977), one of the benefits provided for qualified members of the GSIS is
the old-age pension benefit. A member
who has rendered at least fifteen (15) years of service and is at least sixty
(60) years old when separated from the service, is entitled to a basic monthly
pension for life but for not less than five (5) years. On the other hand, a member who has rendered
less than fifteen (15) years of service but with at least three (3) years of
service and is sixty (60) years of age when separated from the service is entitled to a cash payment
equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the average monthly compensation
for every year of service.

However, retirement is compulsory for a member who has reached
the age of sixty-five (65) years with at least fifteen (15) years of
service. If he has less than fifteen
(15) years of service, he shall be allowed to continue in the service to
complete the fifteen (15) years,^[11] to
avail of the old-age pension benefit.

To a public servant, a pension is not a gratuity but rather a
form of deferred compensation for services perform­ed and his right to it
commences to vest upon his entry into the retirement system and becomes an
enforceable obligation in court upon fulfillment of all conditions under which
it is to be paid. Similarly, retirement
benefits receivable by public employees are valuable parts of the consideration
for entrance into and continuation in public office or employ­ment. They serve a public purpose and a primary
objective in establishing them is to induce competent persons to enter and
remain in public employment and render faithful and efficient service while so
employed.^[12]
Retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the retiree because their
intention is to provide for his sustenance and hope­fully even comfort, when he
no longer has the stamina to continue earning his livelihood.^[13]
The liberal approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes of the law in
order that the efficiency, security and well-being of government employees
maybe enhanced.^[14]

In the case at bar, at the time petitioner reached the compulsory
retirement age of sixty-five (65) years, she had rendered less than the
required fifteen (15) years of service under Section 11 of P.D. 1146. Thus, to enable her to avail of the old-age
pension benefit, she was allowed to continue in the service and her term as
President of EARIST was extended until she shall have completed the fifteen
(15) year service requirement, or for an additional two (2) years, seven (7)
months, and twelve (12) days, as determined by the Office of the President.

This period of extended service granted to petitioner was amended
by the Office of the President. In
resolving the administrative complaint against petitioner, the Office of the
President, ruled not only on the issues of alleged irregular appointment of petitioner and of graft
and corrupt practices, but went further by, in effect, reducing the period of
extension of service granted to petitioner on the ground that the latter had
already completed the fifteen (15) year service requirement under P.D. 1146,
and declared petitioner as compulsorily retired as of 15 October 1991.

In other words, the extension of service of petitioner was until
January 1992. However, the Office of
the President made a new computation of petitioner’s creditable service. In the process of determining petitioner’s
period of service with the government, the Office of the President included as
part of her service the sixty-two (62) days sick leave applied for by
petitioner covering the period between 20 March to 17 June 1988 and her service
as a lecturer of approximately two (2) weeks, or a total of three-and-a-half (3
1/2) months. As a result of this new
computation, peti­tioner’s extension of service which was supposed to end in
January 1992 was reduced by the Office of the President by three-and-a-half (3
1/2) months or until 15 October 1991.

On the other hand, the computation made by the GSIS as to the exact
date of retirement of petitioner fell on 14 August 1992.^[15]
Thus, the extension of service granted to petitioner by the Office of the
President for two (2) years, seven (7) months and twelve (12) days which
brought her services only up to January 1992, would not enable herein
petitioner to complete the fifteen (15) years service requirement for purposes
of retirement. To allow the Office of
the President to shorten the extension of service of petitioner by three-and-a-half
(3 1/2) months which consist of petitioner’s sick leave and service as
lecturer, would further reduce petitioner’s service with the government. Such reduction from petitioner’s service
would deprive her of the opportunity of availing of the old-age pension plan, based
on the computation of the GSIS.

We hold that it is the GSIS which has the original and exclusive
jurisdiction to determine whether a member is qualified or not to avail of the
old-age pension benefit under P.D. 1146, based on its computation of a member’s
years of service with the government.^[16] The
computation of a member’s service includes not only full time but also part
time and other services with compensation as may be included under the rules
and regulations prescribed by the System.^[17]

The sixty-two (62) days leave of absence of petitioner between 20
March to 17 June 1986 and her part-time service as a lecturer of approximately
two (2) weeks, or a total of three-and-a-half (3 1/2) months is not reflected
in her service record. Said period
should be considered as part of her service with the government and it is only
but proper that her service record be amended to reflect said period of
service.

We have observed that the computation made by the GSIS of
petitioner’s date of retirement failed to take into account the
three-and-a-half (3 1/2) months service of petitioner which was not reflected
in her service record. If we deduct
this unrecorded three-and-a-half (3 1/2) months service of petitioner from 14
August 1992, petitioner is to be considered retired on 30 April 1992.

The order of the Office of the President declaring petitioner as
compulsorily retired as of 15 October 1991
defeats the purpose for allowing petitioner to remain in the service until she
has completed the fifteen (15) years service requirement. Between the period of 16 October 1991 to 30
April 1992, petitioner should have been allowed to continue in the service to
be able to complete the fifteen (15) years service requirement; she was
prepared to render services for said period but was not allowed to do so; she
should, therefore, be entitled to all her salaries, benefits and other
emoluments during said period (16 October 1991 – 30 April 1992). However, petitioner’s claim for reinstate­ment
to her former position to enable her to complete the fifteen (15) year service
requirement for retirement purposes is no longer possible, considering that she
is deemed to have completed the said service requirement as of 30 April 1992.

WHEREFORE, the portion of the decision of the Office of
the President dated 23 October 1991 declaring petitioner as compulsorily
retired as of 15 October 1991 is SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby declared to have been in the service as President
of EARIST from 16 October 1991 until 30 April 1992 and therefore entitled to
all salaries, benefits and other emoluments of said office from 16 October 1991
to 30 April 1992. In addition, she is
declared as entitled to her old-age pension benefits for having reached age 65 years
while in the service with 15 years of service to her credit, subject to her
compliance with all applicable regulations and requirements of the GSIS.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 41-42

^[2]
Ibid., p. 49

^[3]
Rollo, p. 50

^[4]
Ibid., pp. 82-83

^[5]
Ibid., pp. 53-54

^[6]
Comment, Rollo, pp. 118-120

^[7]
Rollo, pp. 25-33

^[8]
Ibid., p. 33

^[9]
Rollo, p. 71

^[10]
Rollo, pp. 35-38

^[11]
Sections 11 & 12, PD 1146

^[12]
Ortiz v. Comelec, G.R. No. 78957, 28 June 1998, 162 SCRA 812

^[13]
Santiago v. COA, G.R. No. 92284, 12 July 1991, 199 SCRA 125

^[14]
Ortiz v. Comelec, supra.

^[15]
Rollo, p. 56

^[16]
Section 24, PD 1146

^[17]
Section 10, PD 1146