ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 143190   October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 143190. October 17, 2001.]

    ANTONIO P. BELICENA, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PARDO, J.:


    The Case


    Appeal via certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 affirming the ruling of the Civil Service Commission that, in the computation of petitioner’s terminal leave pay, the basis therefor would be the highest monthly salary he received as Undersecretary of the Department of Finance, not the rate corresponding to the position of Secretary of Finance, even if he had been designated as, and assumed the position of Acting Secretary of Finance for one (1) working day on May 22, 1997, until May 25, 1997.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Facts


    The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Antonio P. Belicena, the Petitioner in the present recourse, was appointed Acting Undersecretary, in the Department of Finance, on February 12, 1997 and forthwith assumed office. While still acting as Acting Undersecretary of Finance, the president designated him, on May 20, 1997, as Acting Secretary of Finance, effective May 22, 1997 until May 27, 1997, while the Secretary of Finance, Roberto de Ocampo, was in Hongkong, on official business for the government (Annex "E", Petition [with the Court of Appeals]). The Petitioner took his oath of office, on May 22, 1997, as Acting Secretary of Finance. In a letter-Memorandum, Acting Secretary Executive Luis C. Liwanag III confirmed the designation of the Petitioner as Acting Secretary of Finance. The petitioner received his one (1) days salary as Acting Secretary of Finance. (p. 1, Annex "A", Petition).

    "On October 8, 1997, the Petitioner reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years old, by which time, he had rendered forty-four (44) years of continuous service with the Department of Finance. However, the President extended his services, as Acting Undersecretary of Finance, until April 8, 1998 and extended the same anew until June 30, 1998. In anticipation of his impending compulsory retirement, the Petitioner submitted, on May 18, 1998, his application for terminal leave to the then Secretary of Finance Salvador Enriquez but the latter did not act on said application. When Secretary of Finance Edgardo Espiritu assumed office, he approved the application of Petitioner. Accordingly, a Disbursement Voucher for Land Bank of the Philippines Check No. 0000083217-B1, in the aggregate amount of P2,506,464.21, inclusive of the terminal leave pay of the Petitioner, in the amount of P2,521,568.21, were processed and submitted, on July 21, 1998, to Assistant Secretary Ma. Eleanor F. dela Cruz for her signature (Annex "I", Petitioner [with the Court of Appeals]). However, the latter refused to sign the voucher, claiming that, in the computation of Petitioner’s terminal leave pay, his one-day salary as Acting Secretary of Finance should not be considered as his last monthly salary. The same should be based on his salary as Acting Undersecretary of Finance. Despite petitioner’s request for the reconsideration of the decision of Assistant Secretary dela Cruz, the latter refused to budge. In the meantime, conformably with the opinion of Assistant Secretary Ma. Eleanor dela Cruz, a Disbursement Voucher and Land Bank of the Philippines [Check] No. 00009141-B1, in the aggregate amount of P2,072,900.46 were prepared and signed by Assistant Secretary Ma. Eleanor F. dela Cruz (Annex "M", , Petition [with the Court of Appeals]). There was thus a difference of P418,243.50 between the amount claimed by the Petitioner and the amount approved under the latter voucher. The Petitioner accepted the amount without prejudice to his right to assail the position of the Assistant Secretary. To settle the matter, Solomon S. Cua, the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Secretary of Finance, sought on August 22, 1998, the resolution of the Civil Service Commission on the salary of the Petitioner to be used as correct basis for the computation of the monetary value of his terminal leave (Annex "O", Petition [with the Court of Appeals]). On October 1, 1998, the Commission found and declared that "since the one-day salary received by the petitioner, as Acting Secretary of Finance, was by virtue of a valid designation, by the President, of the Petitioner as Acting Secretary of Finance, the monetary value of his terminal leave should be computed on the basis of his highest salary, that is, corresponding to his salary as Acting Secretary of Finance (Annex "P", Petition [with the Court of Appeals]).

    "Solomon S. Cua, the Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Secretary of Finance, filed a motion, with the Commission, for the reconsideration of its ruling (Annex "O", Petition [with the Court of Appeals]). He averred that, since the Secretary of Finance Roberto de Ocampo was in Hongkong, on official business, for the government, the Petitioner, when designated as Acting Secretary of Finance, was merely given additional duties and responsibilities. Hence, the Petitioner was not entitled to the salary of a Secretary of Finance. Only one person was entitled to receive the salary for said position since there was only one salary appropriated by Congress for the position of Secretary of Finance. A salary differential can only be paid out of the amount appropriated for the salary of the Secretary of Finance, but if the incumbent Secretary of Finance was receiving his salary at the time the Petitioner was designated as Acting Secretary of Finance, then there was no legal source of fund from which the salary differential may be paid to the Petitioner. On January 7, 1999, the Civil Service Commission issued resolution No. 990046 granting the motion of Solomon S. Cua and thus reconsidered its resolution rendered on October 1, 1998 (Annex "A", Petition [with the Court of Appeals]). The petitioner, this time, filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" of the Resolution of the Respondent. The Petitioner ratiocinated that, under Section 17, Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code, the president of the Philippines may designate temporarily an officer already in the government service to perform the functions of an office in the Executive Branch when the officer regularly appointed to the office is unable to perform his duties by reason of illness, absence or any other cause and the person so designated shall receive the compensation attached to the position unless he is already in the government service, in which case, he shall receive only such additional compensation as, with his existing salary, shall not exceed the salary authorized by law for the position filled. The Department of Finance should have, in its computation, included his COLA and RATA conformably with the Decision of the Supreme Court in "Jesus N. Borromeo, versus Civil Service Commission, 199 SCRA 911" (Annex "Q", Petition [with the Court of Appeals].chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "However, on July 8, 1999, the Respondent issued Resolution No. 991507 denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, declaring that the Petitioner cannot find solace in Section 17, Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code because the same applies only when the incumbent Secretary of Finance was unable to perform his duties by reason of illness, absence or any other cause analogous thereto. Applying the doctrine of ejusdem generis in statutory construction, the petitioner cannot justifiably claim that Secretary of Finance Roberto de Ocampo was unable to perform his duties as, in fact, he was in Hongkong on official business for the government. The Petitioner cannot likewise invoke the Decision of the Supreme Court in "Jesus N. Borromeo versus Civil Service Commission, supra," because the principle enunciated therein applied only to qualified members of the Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions and not to officials of the Executive Department. (Annex "B", Petition [with the Court of Appeals]).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "The Petitioner forthwith filed his "Petition for Review" with th[e] Court [of Appeals], under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, for the nullification of the Resolutions of the Civil Service Commission, Annexes "A" and "B" of the Petition [with the Court of Appeals], and for the affirmation of the ruling of the Civil Service Commission in his favor, dated October 1, 1998, Annex "P" of the Petition [with the Court of Appeals]. (pp. 1-4, Annex "A", Petition). 2

    On January 28, 2000, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision dismissing the petition, in effect upholding the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission. 3

    On February 22, 1999, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration 4 of the decision. However, on April 28, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. 5

    Hence, this appeal. 6

    The Issue


    The sole issue for resolution is whether in the commutation of petitioner’s terminal leave credits, his highest monthly salary shall be that corresponding to the position of Secretary of Finance. 7

    The Court’s Ruling


    President Fidel V. Ramos designated petitioner as Acting Secretary of Finance effective May 22, 1997, for the duration of the trip to Hongkong of Secretary of Finance Robert F. de Ocampo. 8 He took his oath of office as Acting Secretary on May 22, 1997. 9

    The issue of whether petitioner’s highest monthly salary for purposes of computing his terminal leave pay shall be that corresponding to the position of Secretary of Finance, which he received as Acting Secretary of Finance is dependent on the statutory basis of the President when he designated petitioner as Acting Secretary of Finance on May 22, 1997. Petitioner asserts that his designation as Acting Secretary was based on Section 17, Chapter 5, Title 1, Book III, of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), which provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(1) The President may temporarily designate an officer already in the government service or any other competent person to perform the functions of an office in the executive branch, appointment to which is vested in him by law, when:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(a) The officer regularly appointed to the office is unable to perform his duties by reason of illness, absence or any other cause; or

    "(b) There exists a vacancy.

    "(2) The person designated shall receive the compensation attached to the position, unless he is already in the government service in which case he shall receive only such additional compensation as with his existing salary, shall not exceed the salary authorized by law for the position filled. The compensation hereby authorized shall be paid out of the funds appropriated for the office or agency concerned.

    "(3) In no case shall a temporary designation exceed one (1) year."cralaw virtua1aw library

    When the President designated the petitioner as Acting Secretary on May 22, 1997, he did so under a well considered opinion that the absence of Secretary de Ocampo was of such an extent that the latter would be unable to perform his duties and, by reason of such opinion, the President extended a temporary designation to petitioner under Section 17 of the Administrative Code of 1987.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Commission on Audit, the Constitutional office tasked with the duty to "examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue, and receipts of and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by or pertaining to the government or any of its subdivisions . . ." (Article IX-D, Section 2[1], 1987 Constitution), has held that a government official appointed or designated in an acting capacity pursuant to Section 17, Chapter 5, Title 1, Book III of the 1987 Administrative Code is entitled to salary differential and that his highest monthly salary for purposes of computing his terminal leave pay shall include such salary differential.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The well-settled rule is that the money value of the terminal leave of a retiring government official shall be computed at the retiree’s highest monthly salary. In Paredes v. Acting Chairman, 10 the Court had occasion to interpret Subsection (c), Section 12, Commonwealth Act No. 186, the law authorizing the grant of terminal leave pay, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The foregoing legal provision requires the computation of the money value of the terminal leave to be based on the retiree’s "highest rate received." And a reading of the entire provision shows that "highest rate received" refers to the retirees’ highest "monthly salary."cralaw virtua1aw library

    What was petitioner’s highest monthly salary upon which the commutation of his terminal leave credit shall be based?

    His highest monthly salary is that corresponding to position of Secretary of Finance which petitioner received while he was Acting Secretary from May 22 to 25, 1997, during the travel abroad of the Secretary.

    Petitioner was due to retire as Undersecretary of Finance upon reaching the compulsory retirement age of 65 years on October 8, 1997, at which time he would have served the government for forty-four (44) years. However, President Ramos saw the need to extend petitioner’s services with the Department of Finance and, hence, extended his term twice until June 30, 1998.cralaw : red

    The Fallo

    WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 54434. In lieu thereof, the Court REVIVES and AFFIRMS the ruling of the Civil Service Commission that the highest monthly salary of petitioner, which shall be the basis for the commutation of his terminal leave credits, is that corresponding to the position of Secretary of Finance, excluding COLA and RATA. 11

    No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

    Kapunan, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. In CA-G. R. SP No. 54434, promulgated on January 28, 2000. Callejo, Sr., J., ponente, Garcia and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concurring. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 26-38.

    2. Petition, Annex ‘’A", Rollo, pp. 26-38, at pp. 26-29.

    3. Ibid.

    4. Petition, Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 100-109.

    5. Petition, Annex "B", Rollo, p. 39.

    6. Petition filed on May 30, 2000, Rollo, pp. 3-25. On October 2, 2000, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 151-152).

    7. Petition, Rollo, pp. 3-24, at p. 8.

    8. Petition, Annex "E" of Annex "C", Rollo, p. 72.

    9. Petition, Annex "F", Rollo, p. 73.

    10. 201 Phil. 644 [1982].

    11. Borromeo v. Civil Service Commission, 199 SCRA 911, 925-926 [1991].

    G.R. No. 143190   October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED