March 1989 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 1989 > March 1989 Resolutions >
[Administrative Matter No. 5498-Ret. : March 07, 1989] RE: APPLICATION FOR OPTIONAL RETIREMENT OF FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE VENICIO T. ESCOLIN :
[Administrative Matter No. 5498-Ret. : March 07, 1989]
RE: APPLICATION FOR OPTIONAL RETIREMENT OF FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE VENICIO T. ESCOLIN
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 9 October 2001
"Administrative Matter No. 5498-Ret. (Re: Application for Optional Retirement of Former Associate Justice Venicio T. Escolin. )
Before the Court en banc is the application of former Supreme Court Associate Justice Venicio T. Escolin for the approval of his retirement under Republic Act No. 910, as amended, in lieu of under Republic Act no. 660, which the Court en banc had previously approved. It will be recalled that in the aftermath of the February 1986 Revolution, the incumbent members of the Supreme Court were asked by President Corazon C. Aquino to submit their courtesy resignations. Justices Escolin wrote President Aquino that although he could not, in conscience, tender his resignation. He was leaving his position at the President's disposal since no resignation was necessary considering that the government was then a revolutionary one. President's Aquino, in Executive Order No. 12, dated April 16, 1986, declared the "reorganization" of the Supreme Court complete with the appointment and re-appointment of Justices specifically named in the order and accepted "with thanks" the courtesy resignation" of the incumbent Justices who were not re-appointed. Justice Escolin was among those in the latter category.
Justice Escolin thus filed an application for retirement effective April 15, 1986 and the Court, on June 17, 1986, resolved
In a letter dated December 8, 19S3, Justice Escolin asked the Court that he be considered retired under the more favorable provisions of R.A. No., 910, instead of under the provisions of R.A. No. 660. In connection therewith, he expressed his conformity to the deduction of the benefits he had already received under R.A. No. 660 from the benefits that he expected to receive under R.A. No. 510. On January 19, 1989, the Court en banc resolved to refer the matter to the Court Administrator for study and evaluation.
The Court Administrator, in his memorandum to the Chief justice dated January 23, 1989, recommended that Justice Escolin's retirements thereof, applying by analogy the Court's ruling in Re: Application for gratuity benefits of Associate Justice Efren L. Plana, Adm. Matter No. 5460-Ret.
After a thorough consideration of the matter, the Court, finds Justice Escolin's application for the approval of his retirement under R.A. No. 910, as amended, impressed with merit.
Section 1 of R.A. No. 910, as amended, provides that
Corrollary thereto, Section 3 of R.A. No. 910. as amended, further provides; that upon retirement, the justices and judges so mentioned shall be automatically entitled to a lumpsum of five (5) 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. Taking Sections 1 and 3 together, a justice or judge retiring under Section 1 would be entitled to a lump sum of equivalent to five years salary and allowances and after the fifth year, a monthly pension for the residue of his natural life.
To be retired under Section 1 (underscored portion), the justice or judge must be at least sixty (60) years if age and must have had twenty (20) years total government service, the last five (5) years of which had been served continuously in the judiciary. Turning to the matter at bar, Justice Escolin, as of April 15, 1985, the date of his retirement, was sixty-five (85) years old and had seventeen (17) years of government service, all of them in the judiciary. It would therefore appear that, lacking three (3) more years of service in the government, he would not qualify for retirement under Section 1.
The Court, however, in Re: Application for Gratuity Benefits of Associate Justice Efren J. Plana. Adm. Matter No. 5460-Ret, has allowed the use of accumulated leave credits to cover the deficiency in age. Thus, Justice Plana, who was two (2) years and seventy-three (73) days short of his sixtieth birthday, but who had accumulated leave of one thousand and forty (1,040) days, was deemed to have substantially complied with the requirements of Section 1 of R.A. No. 910, as amended. This liberal approach was also adopted in Re: Retirement of District Judge Isaac Puno, Jr., Adm. Matter No. 589-Ret, and in Re: Judge Alejandro Galang, Jr., Adm. Matter No. 1270-Ret. where the benefits under Section 2 of R.A. No. 910, as amended, were awarded to the heirs of the deceased judges in spite of the deficiency in the length of service.
In Justice Escolin's case, although he is thirty-six (36) months short of the required length of service in the government, nonetheless, he had accumulated a total of thirty-four (34) months of leave credits (including his forfeitable leaves) and has rendered service in the judiciary for seventeen long and continuous (17) years, or more than thrice the required period of five (5) years. That his stint in the judiciary was marked with distinction is not open to doubt. Justice Escolin will always be remembered for such landmark decisions as Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff [G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27], which have vastly contributed to the enrichment of the law on our Bill of Rights.
Considering further that retirement law's are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree, the gratuity provided by law being a form of deferred compensation for services he or she had faithfully rendered, the Court deems Justice Escolin to have substantially complied with the requirements under Section 1 of R.A. No. 910, as amended.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to MODIFY its resolution in this case, dated June 17, 1986, and to APPROVE the application for retirement of Justice Venicio T. Escolin under R. A. No. 910, as amended, effective April 15, 1986 and to GRANT him the retirement gratuity benefits under Sections 1 and 3 of R.A. No. 910, as amended, equivalent to five years lump sum and the monthly pension after the year and the longetivity pay pursuant to the resolution of the Court en banc dated March 7, 1985, deducting thereform any benefits he might have received under R.A. No. 660."
"Administrative Matter No. 5498-Ret. (Re: Application for Optional Retirement of Former Associate Justice Venicio T. Escolin. )
Before the Court en banc is the application of former Supreme Court Associate Justice Venicio T. Escolin for the approval of his retirement under Republic Act No. 910, as amended, in lieu of under Republic Act no. 660, which the Court en banc had previously approved. It will be recalled that in the aftermath of the February 1986 Revolution, the incumbent members of the Supreme Court were asked by President Corazon C. Aquino to submit their courtesy resignations. Justices Escolin wrote President Aquino that although he could not, in conscience, tender his resignation. He was leaving his position at the President's disposal since no resignation was necessary considering that the government was then a revolutionary one. President's Aquino, in Executive Order No. 12, dated April 16, 1986, declared the "reorganization" of the Supreme Court complete with the appointment and re-appointment of Justices specifically named in the order and accepted "with thanks" the courtesy resignation" of the incumbent Justices who were not re-appointed. Justice Escolin was among those in the latter category.
Justice Escolin thus filed an application for retirement effective April 15, 1986 and the Court, on June 17, 1986, resolved
to (a) APPROVE the application of Justice Venicio T. Escolin of this Court for optional retirement under R.A. No. 660, as amend ed effective April 15, 1986 (b) GRANT Justice Escolin retirement gratuity benefits equivalent to five (5) years lump sum based on actuarial computation of the Government-Service Insurance System for the members of the Judiciary which shall also include the longevity pay, in line with the resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 7, 1985 and the monthly pens.ion for life after the 5th year.
In a letter dated December 8, 19S3, Justice Escolin asked the Court that he be considered retired under the more favorable provisions of R.A. No., 910, instead of under the provisions of R.A. No. 660. In connection therewith, he expressed his conformity to the deduction of the benefits he had already received under R.A. No. 660 from the benefits that he expected to receive under R.A. No. 510. On January 19, 1989, the Court en banc resolved to refer the matter to the Court Administrator for study and evaluation.
The Court Administrator, in his memorandum to the Chief justice dated January 23, 1989, recommended that Justice Escolin's retirements thereof, applying by analogy the Court's ruling in Re: Application for gratuity benefits of Associate Justice Efren L. Plana, Adm. Matter No. 5460-Ret.
After a thorough consideration of the matter, the Court, finds Justice Escolin's application for the approval of his retirement under R.A. No. 910, as amended, impressed with merit.
Section 1 of R.A. No. 910, as amended, provides that
When a justice of the Supreme Court or of ths Court of Appeals, a judge of the Court of First Instance, Industrial Relations, Agrarian Relations, Tax Appeals,. Juvenile and Domestic Relations, or a city or municipal judge who has rendered at least twenty years service in the judiciary or in any branch of the Governments or in both, (a) retires for having attained the age of seventy years, or (b) resigns by reason of his incapacity to discharge the duties of his office, he shall receive during the residue of his -natural life, in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary which he was receiving at the time of his retirement or resignation. And when a justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, a judge of the Court of First Instance. industrial Relations, Agrarian Relations, Tax Appeals, Juvenile and Domestic Relations, or a city or municipal judge has attained the age of sixty years service in the Government the last five of which shall have been continuously rendered in the judiciary, he shall likewise be entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his natural life, also in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary which he was then receiving. xxx [Underscoring supplied.]
Corrollary thereto, Section 3 of R.A. No. 910. as amended, further provides; that upon retirement, the justices and judges so mentioned shall be automatically entitled to a lumpsum of five (5) 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. Taking Sections 1 and 3 together, a justice or judge retiring under Section 1 would be entitled to a lump sum of equivalent to five years salary and allowances and after the fifth year, a monthly pension for the residue of his natural life.
To be retired under Section 1 (underscored portion), the justice or judge must be at least sixty (60) years if age and must have had twenty (20) years total government service, the last five (5) years of which had been served continuously in the judiciary. Turning to the matter at bar, Justice Escolin, as of April 15, 1985, the date of his retirement, was sixty-five (85) years old and had seventeen (17) years of government service, all of them in the judiciary. It would therefore appear that, lacking three (3) more years of service in the government, he would not qualify for retirement under Section 1.
The Court, however, in Re: Application for Gratuity Benefits of Associate Justice Efren J. Plana. Adm. Matter No. 5460-Ret, has allowed the use of accumulated leave credits to cover the deficiency in age. Thus, Justice Plana, who was two (2) years and seventy-three (73) days short of his sixtieth birthday, but who had accumulated leave of one thousand and forty (1,040) days, was deemed to have substantially complied with the requirements of Section 1 of R.A. No. 910, as amended. This liberal approach was also adopted in Re: Retirement of District Judge Isaac Puno, Jr., Adm. Matter No. 589-Ret, and in Re: Judge Alejandro Galang, Jr., Adm. Matter No. 1270-Ret. where the benefits under Section 2 of R.A. No. 910, as amended, were awarded to the heirs of the deceased judges in spite of the deficiency in the length of service.
In Justice Escolin's case, although he is thirty-six (36) months short of the required length of service in the government, nonetheless, he had accumulated a total of thirty-four (34) months of leave credits (including his forfeitable leaves) and has rendered service in the judiciary for seventeen long and continuous (17) years, or more than thrice the required period of five (5) years. That his stint in the judiciary was marked with distinction is not open to doubt. Justice Escolin will always be remembered for such landmark decisions as Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff [G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27], which have vastly contributed to the enrichment of the law on our Bill of Rights.
Considering further that retirement law's are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree, the gratuity provided by law being a form of deferred compensation for services he or she had faithfully rendered, the Court deems Justice Escolin to have substantially complied with the requirements under Section 1 of R.A. No. 910, as amended.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to MODIFY its resolution in this case, dated June 17, 1986, and to APPROVE the application for retirement of Justice Venicio T. Escolin under R. A. No. 910, as amended, effective April 15, 1986 and to GRANT him the retirement gratuity benefits under Sections 1 and 3 of R.A. No. 910, as amended, equivalent to five years lump sum and the monthly pension after the year and the longetivity pay pursuant to the resolution of the Court en banc dated March 7, 1985, deducting thereform any benefits he might have received under R.A. No. 660."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) DANIEL T. MATINEZ
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) DANIEL T. MATINEZ
Clerk of Court
