GAUDENCIO LACSON, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila
dismissing appellant’s petition for mandamus on the grounds that the
court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and that the
petition states no cause of action.

It appears that appellant, former Acting Department Manager and
Administrative Officer of the National Marketing Corporation
(hereinafter referred to as NAMARCO) with salary at P7,200.00 per
annum, was, on December 31, 1955, laid off as a result of the
reorganization of the corporation under Administrative Order No. 53
issued pursuant to Republic Act No. 1845, otherwise known as the
NAMARCO Law. He had been in the government service since 1912.

On February 6, 1956, he filed with the Government Service Insurance
System (hereinafter referred to as GSIS) an application for retirement
under Com. Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Act No. 660. The
application was approved and, on the basis of his length of service
arid age, he received from the GSIS the total sum of P18,617.58.

In addition to the retirement insurance benefits he received,
appellant also filed with the NAMARCO a claim for gratuity equivalent
to one month salary for every year he had been in the government
service, under section 18 (b), par. (3), of Republic Act No. 1345. The
claim, however, was denied).the Auditor General—to whom it was
referred—ruling that appellant’s right to gratuity is alternative to
retirement benefits under Com. Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Act
No. 660. Contending otherwise, appellant, on November 26, 1956, riled
the present action for mandamus against the Auditor General, NAMARCO,
and the GSIS. In his petition, as against the first two respondents
named, appellant claims in substance that he was unjustly laid off
because he was, at the time, only 61 years old and had still 3 years,
one month and 12 days to serve until the compulsory retirement age of
65 years, thus depriving him of his salary for that period in the total
sum of P22,220.00; that having been in the service for 42 years, he is
entitled to the total sum of P25,200.00 computed at one month salary
for every year of service he had rendered; that his right to said
gratuity cannot be limited to 12 months as provided in Republic Act No.
1345, such limitation being discriminatory and unconstitutional. As
against the GSIS, appellant alleges that he “sustained the
corresponding actuarial deductions in the amount of P3,720.00, the
amount deducted from his 5 year lump sum annuity at the rate of P62.00
per month, in view of the fact that he is legally entitled to P424.00
had he reached the age of 65 years in the service, instead of P362.00
only, the basis of his present annuity.” Appellant, likewise, claims
P15,000.00 moral damages, plus P8,000.00 attorney’s fees.

Instead of answering the petition, the respondents-appellees filed
separate motions to dismiss, that of the respondent GSIS based on the
ground of failure of the petition to state a cause of action, and that
of the other respondents, also on the same ground in addition to lack
of jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the case. Acting
upon the motions, the court below in its order of May 7, 1957 dismissed
the petition, with cost against petitioner-appellant. Hence, this
appeal.

The appeal is without merit.

Appellant, by his petition for mandamus, is, in effect, appealing
from the decision of the Auditor General denying his claim for
gratuity. Such appeal should have been made to this Court within 30
days from notice of the decision. As the law now stands, the decision
of the Auditor General in cases affecting an executive department,
bureau, or office of the Government may be appealed directly to the
President whose action shall be final; while those where the aggrieved
party is a private person or entity are appealable to the Supreme
Court. (Com. Act No. 827; Rule 45, Rules of Court; Radiowealth vs. Agregado, 86 Phil., 429; 47 Off. Gaz., [12th] Supp. 87; Stiver vs. Dizon, 76 Phil., 725; Abad Santos vs. Auditor General, 79 Phil., 176; 45 Off. Gaz., 1216; Rosario vs. Auditor General, G.R. No. L-11817, April 30, 1958.)

In any event, the petition states no cause of action.
Petitioner-appellant, instead of contesting the legality of his
separation from the NAMARCO, filed an application for and received
retirement insurance benefits under Com. Act No. 186, as amended by
Republic Act No. 660. Such being the case, his claim for the salary he
would have received had he not been laid off cannot be allowed. As to
his claim for gratuity, this Court has already held in the case of
Gabriel vs. Government Service Insurance System (103 Phil.,
651; 55 Off. Gaz. [10] 1756), that under the second paragraph of
section 26 of Republic Act No. 660 gratuity is excluded by the
enjoyment of retirement insurance benefits.

Moreover, section 18 (b), par. 3, of Republic Act No. 1345, under
which appellant claims his right to gratuity, does not, in our opinion,
allow the payment of gratuity in addition to retirement insurance
benefits. That section provides in part as follows:

“SEC. 18.—(a) * * *

“(b) * * *

“(3)
* * * If the officials and employees of the PRISCO so separated from
the service are entitled to retire under the Osmena Retirement Law (Act
2598, as amended) or under Republic Act Numbered Six hundred sixty,
they shall be so retired upon the payment of the obligation, of the
PRISCO to the Government Service Insurance System subsisting under the
said Republic Act Numbered Six hundred sixty on the date of the
approval hereof. Those who may not be retired under the aforesaid laws
shall be entitled to gratuity, which shall be paid in one lump sum,
equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of continuous,
satisfactory service rendered in the PRISCO and in any branch of the
government and government agencies and instrumentalities on the basis
of the last salary received by them, but not exceeding twelve months in
the aggregate: * * *.”

Under the above legal provisions, it is apparent that those who may
be retired under the Osmeña Retirement Law (Act 2598, as amended) or
under Republic Act No. 660 (which amends Com. Act 186) are not entitled
to gratuity. At any rate, the right to gratuity, as already seen, is
excluded by the enjoyment of retirement insurance benefits under
Republic Act No. 660. Having received retirement insurance benefits
under said Act, appellant has, therefore, by his own voluntary act,
divested himself of his right to gratuity.

As to appellant’s charge of illegal “actuarial deductions” against
the GSIS—which is based on the theory that his annuity should be
computed at P424.00 per month, instead of P362.00, since, according to
him, he is entitled to receive that amount “had he reached the age of
65 years in service” —suffice it to say that said appellant admits in
his petition that on the date of his retirement he was only 61 years of
age. He does not question the amounts paid to him by the GSIS as
incorrectly computed based upon his age and length of service at the
time of his retirement. The charge, therefore, is not only without
basis but also preposterous.

Wherefore, the order of dismissal appealed from is affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.