EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RAMON A. DIAZ, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. MACARIO PERALTA, JR., SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DE­FENSE, GEN. ALFREDO M. SANTOS, CHIEF OF STAFF, A…

Ramos versus Diaz

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus filed by Colonel Edilberto Ramos against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and the Chief of Finance of the Armed Forces. Ramos asks the Supreme Court to compel the payment of his retirement benefits under the Armed Forces Retirement Act, Republic Act 340, as amended. The case matters because it fixes a rule every examinee should carry: compulsory retirement after thirty years of service does not automatically vest retirement benefits, because the law requires that the service be satisfactory, and the pendency of criminal charges against the retiree puts that very requirement in issue.

Procedural History

This was an original action. Ramos filed the petition for mandamus directly before the Supreme Court on May 12, 1965, impleading the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff, and the Chief of Finance of the Armed Forces. There were no intermediate proceedings in a trial court or in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court took the case at first instance and decided it on the merits.

Facts

Colonel Edilberto Ramos was ordered compulsorily retired from the Armed Forces of the Philippines effective September 22, 1963, for having completed thirty years of service, pursuant to the Armed Forces Retirement Act, Republic Act 340. The order of retirement, dated October 25, 1963, was signed by the Chief of Staff for the General Headquarters, upon the authority of the President.

Several criminal cases, however, were pending against Ramos, some for estafa and malversation of public funds alleged to have been committed during his service. For this reason, payment of his retirement benefits was withheld until he obtained clearances of the criminal charges and of his money and property accountabilities. Ramos wrote three letters to the President praying for payment. On April 27, 1965, the Adjutant General, signing for the Acting Chief of Staff, informed him that the Office of the President had denied payment of his retirement benefits until he is cleared of the criminal charges.

Ramos then filed the petition for mandamus. He argued that compulsory retirement itself determines the satisfactoriness of his service and automatically vests his right to the benefits; that payment is mandatory under the Act; and that withholding the benefits amounts to a conviction and violates the presumption of innocence.

Issues

• Whether or not the payment of retirement benefits under the Armed Forces Retirement Act may be withheld pending resolution of the criminal charges against the retiree.
• Whether or not compulsory retirement after thirty years of service automatically vests in the retiree the right to the benefits under the Act.
• Whether or not the withholding of the benefits violates the presumption of innocence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, paragraph b, of Republic Act 340, the Armed Forces Retirement Act, provides:

Upon completion of at least thirty years of continuous satisfactory active service or upon attaining sixty years of age with a minimum of fifteen years continuous active service, retirement shall be compulsory, unless the continued service of the officer or enlisted man is, in the opinion of the President, required for the good of the service.

This is the provision the Court construes, and its requirement that the thirty years of continuous active service be satisfactory is the pivot of the entire ruling.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that payment may be withheld. The provision is clear that continuous active service during the thirty-year period must be satisfactory in order that the benefits under the Act may be granted. Thus, one may be compelled to retire after thirty years of continuous active service, but it does not necessarily follow that he automatically gets the benefits, especially when circumstances cast doubt upon the satisfactoriness of his service. Here, the order of retirement was in approval of the recommendation of the General Headquarters for his retirement for the good of the service, in view of the pendency of the criminal charges. The letter ordering his retirement provided for payment of benefits only after showing the satisfactoriness of his service through the submission of clearances of his criminal charges and of his money and property accountabilities.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the claim of automatic vesting. Ramos relied on the phrase "creditable service" in the letter from the Office of the President, invoking Webster's definition of that which is sufficiently good to bring esteem. But the same letter expressly stated that payment of the corresponding gratuity and any other benefits shall be held pending resolution of the satisfactoriness of his service, to be determined only upon submittal of clearances. In the light of the clear terms of the letter, "creditable service" could not have the import Ramos claimed. The Court added that mandamus would only lie if the petitioner's right is clear and indubitable.

On the third issue, the Court held that the presumption of innocence is not violated. Ramos is not being presumed guilty of or punished for any offense. Rather, the pendency of the criminal charges puts in issue the satisfactoriness of his service, and this point has first to be resolved before retirement benefits can be paid to him.

Doctrine

Compulsory retirement after thirty years of continuous active service does not automatically vest retirement benefits under the Armed Forces Retirement Act. The law requires continuous satisfactory active service, and the grant of benefits may be withheld pending resolution of the satisfactoriness of the retiree's service, as where criminal charges are pending against him. Withholding the benefits is not a punishment and does not violate the presumption of innocence, because the retiree is not being presumed guilty of any offense; the charges merely put in issue the satisfactoriness of his service. Finally, mandamus lies only where the petitioner's right is clear and indubitable.

Disposition

The petition for mandamus was denied, with no costs. The respondents prevailed, and the withholding of Ramos' retirement benefits stood.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: compulsory retirement is not the same as entitlement to retirement benefits, because the law demands satisfactory service, and mandamus needs a clear and indubitable right. Examiners use this case on the requisites of mandamus and on the distinction between the fact of retirement and the vesting of retirement benefits.