Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. No. 00-10-230-MTCC : September 23, 2008] RE: "EXPOSE" OF A CONCERNED MEDIAMAN ON THE ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTS OF JUDGE JULIAN C. OCAMPO & CLERK OF COURT RENATO C. SAN JUAN, MTCC-NAGA CITY :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated September 23, 2008

A.M. No. 00-10-230-MTCC (Re: "Expose" of a Concerned Mediaman on the Alleged Illegal Acts of Judge Julian C. Ocampo & Clerk of Court Renato C. San Juan, MTCC-Naga City)-

In a Letter dated 23 March 2008 addressed to Atty. Lilian C. Barribal-Co, Chief of Office, Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Judge Julian C. Ocampo requested information as to when his pension will start considering the resolution dated 9 December 2003 granting him twenty five percent (25%) of his retirement benefits.

Judge Ocampo's letter was referred to the OCA for Report and Recommendation. Consequently, the OCA submitted before the Court a Memorandum dated 25 June 2008, the pertinent parts of which read:

Records show that in a Decision of the Court En Banc promulgated on 20 June 2001 in A.M. No. 00-10-230-MTCC (Re: An Undated letter with the Heading "Expose" of a concerned Mediaman on the Alleged Illegal Acts of Judge Julian C. Ocampo III of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Naga City and Clerk of Court Renato C. San Juan, MTCC, Naga City). Judge Julian C. Ocampo III was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all his accrued retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government including government owned or controlled corporations.

On 10 July 2001, Judge Ocampo filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the Court but this was denied with finality.

On 4 December 2001, he filed a Petition for Judicial Compassion and Understanding invoking the decision of the Court in the case of Liwanag vs. Lustre (A.M. No. MTJ 98-1168, 21 April 1999). The Court En Banc in a Resolution dated 15 January 2002 resolved to treat the petition as a second motion for reconsideration and denied the same for lack of merit.

Undaunted, Judge Ocampo wrote a letter dated 3 August 2003 praying anew for the reconsideration of the penalty of dismissal and forfeiture of his retirement benefits and appealed for compassion and understanding to mitigate the penalty imposed on him.

In a Resolution dated 9 December 2003, the Court En Banc, upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, granted the request of Judge Julian C. Ocampo for the reconsideration of the penalty of forfeiture of his retirement benefits and directed the Financial Management Office, OCA to release the 25% of his retirement benefits.

Verification from the Financial Management Office, OCA revealed that the check in the amount of P382,566.57 equivalent to the 25% of his retirement benefits was mailed to Judge Ocampo on 19 September 2004 per registry return card no. 2177.

It is the position of this Office that Judge Ocampo is not entitled to receive pension or lifetime annuity.

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 paid. (Ortiz v. Commissions on Elections, 162 SCRA 813).

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 910 (An Act to Provide for the Retirement of Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals, for the Enforcement of the Provisions hereof by the Government Service Insurance System and to Repeal Commonwealth Act Numbered Five Hundred and Thirty Six) as amended by Republic Act No. 5095 (An Act Providing for Retirement Benefits of Municipal and City Judges, Further Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act Numbered Nine Hundred Ten) and Presidential Decree No. 1438 (Amending Republic Act 910 Providing for the Retirement of Justices and all Judges in the Judiciary as Amended) provides:

Section 1. When a justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, a judge of 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 of service in the judiciary or in any other branch of the government, 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 Court of First Instance, Industrial Relations, Agrarian Relations, Tax Appeals, Juvenile and Domestic Relations, or a city or municipal judge, who has attained the age of sixty years and has rendered at least twenty 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 residue of his natural life, also in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary for which he was then receiving."

Indeed, respondent would have receive[d] a lifetime annuity after the expiration of the five-year period from the time he received his retirement benefits pursuant to Section 3, R.A. 910 had he retired regularly from the service. Judge Ocampo did not retire from the service but was dismissed for cause. His dismissal resulted in the forfeiture of his retirement benefits. The subsequent grant by the Court of the 25% of his retirement benefits was merely an act of mercy and compassion. It should not be construed to mean that the principal penalty of dismissal has been lifted or set aside. Hence, for failing to meet the requirements under the said law, he is not eligible to receive lifetime annuity.

Inherent in the Court and concordant with its power to amend, control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice (Section 5 (g), Rule 135, Revised Rules of Court) is its authority, upon a plea for clemency, to grant the same and to mitigate the penalty imposed by restoring either in full or in part the forfeited benefits or to allow the re-appointment of dismissed official or personnel in the judiciary.

Had it been the intention of the Court to grant him lifetime annuity, the same could have been categorically stated in the resolution dated 9 December 2003. Absent any specific provision for the entitlement to such annuity in the said resolution, the same could not be granted.

WHEREFORE, lacking consensual and statutory basis for the grant of such annuity, Judge Ocampo cannot demand receipt of the same.

The OCA is correct in its observation that had it been the Court's intention to grant Judge Ocampo lifetime annuity, this could have been categorically stated in the resolution dated 9 December 2003, considering that said resolution was only a modification of the Court's Decision dated 20 June 2001 dismissing Judge Ocampo from service with forfeiture of all his accrued retirement benefits.

In view of all the foregoing, the Court REAFFIRMS that Judge Julian C. Ocampo is NOT ENTITLED to any pension.

Corona, J., on official leave.

                                               

	Very truly yours,
	(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
	Clerk of Court