ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 8796-Ret.December 7, 1999]
RE: APPLICATION FOR OPTIONAL RETIREMENT OF JUDGE EFREN N. AMBROSIO, et al.
EN BANC
Gentlemen :
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 7, 1999 .
A.M. No. 8796-Ret.(Re: Application for Optional Retirement of Judge Efren N Ambrosio, RTC, Aparri, Cagayan, under R.A. No. 910, as amended by R.A. No. 5095 and P.D. No. 1483).
This is an application for optional retirement under R.A. No. 910, as amended, filed by Judge Efren N. Ambrosio, formerly of the Regional Trial Court, Aparri, Cagayan, whose previous application also for optional retirement under R.A. No. 910 was denied by this Court in its resolution of December 12, 1995. The facts and the ground for the denial of Judge Ambrosio's application are stated in the aforesaid resolution of December 12, 1995 as follows:
Judge Ambrosio was originally appointed to the judiciary on August 16, 1982, as district judge of the Court of First Instance of Ilagan, Isabela. In 1987, as a result of the judicial reorganization, he was retired under R.A. No. 1616. In 1990, he was reappointed judge of the RTC of Cagayan.
On December 14, 1994, he applied for optional retirement effective February 2, 1995, his 64th birthday, by which time he would have served in the government for over 30 years, 9 of which in the judiciary. Since his reappointment in 1990, however, he had rendered a total of only 4 years, 8 months, and 18 days of continuous service, or 3 months and 12 days short of the required 5 years to qualify him for optional retirement under R.A. No. 910, as amended. Judge Ambrosio requests that his accumulated leave credits be applied to complete the deficiency in his length of service in the judiciary, citing the cases of Justice Venicio Escolin (Adm. Matter No. 5498-Ret., March 7, 1989) and Justice Efren I. Plana (Adm. Matter No. 5460-Ret., March 24, 1988).
The cases of Justice Escolin and Justice Plana involved courtesy resignations submitted in compliance with the request made by then President Aquino upon her assumption of office, following the People's Revolution in 1986. As explained in Re: Application for Retirement under R.A. No. 910 of Associate Justice Ramon B. Britanico of the Intermediate Appellate Court (Adm. Matter No 6484.-Ret) a courtesy resignation is not a resignation in legal sense because of the absence of a real intention to resign or Surrender the position, with the consequence that acceptance of such "resignation" resulted in an incapacity to discharge the duties of his office on the part of the person submitting such resignation.The acceptance of the "resignation" made it impossible for such person to continue in office and thereby complete the period of service required to qualify him for optional retirement.
In contrast, petitioner's resignation was a voluntary one so that he could run for Councilor for the 2nd District of Quezon City in the elections held on May 8, 1995. In fact, the Court Administrator sent Judge Ambrosio a communication in February, 1995 advising him to continue rendering service up to the time he completed the five-year required period of service in the judiciary, but he chose not to do so.
In the Britanico case, this Court stated:
As provided in section 1, the justices or judges who may enjoy retirement benefits with lifetime annuity, should, as a condition sine qua non, have rendered at least 20 years service in the judiciary or in any other branch of the government, or both. They fall into three (3) categories:
1. Those who mandatorily retire at age 70 and had rendered at least 20 years service in the judiciary or any other branch of the Government or both;
2. Those who resign by reason of incapacity to discharge the duties of their office and had rendered at least 20 years service in the judiciary or in any other branch of the Government or both;
3. Those who voluntarily retire at age 60 after having rendered at least 20 years service in the Government, the last 5 years of which were continuously rendered in the judiciary.
Those justices who would have enjoyed security of tenure for life, but who submitted courtesy resignations because of the change in the leadership of the government and whose personal records were otherwise unblemished, were considered to belong Under the second category of members of the judiciary qualified to retire under R.A. No. 910, as amended, for which there is no five-year requirement.On the other hand, Judge Ambrosio belongs to the third category of retirees who apply for "optional retirement."
For this group of retirees the five-year requirement is mandatory. Since Judge Ambrosio lacks 3 months and 12 days to complete this he cannot avail of the provisions of the law.
In the present application, four grounds are advanced in support of Ambrosio's claim for retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910. These grounds, together with their refutation by the Office of the Court as contained in its memorandum, dated October 12, 1999, follows:
First, Judge Ambrosio contends that his right to receive retirement under R.A. No. 910 became vested when he was "forcibly as a result of the judicial reorganization on January 31, 1987. At that time, Judge Ambrosio claims, he had already qualified for retirement under P.D. No. 910, since he had already "rendered at least 20 years service in the judiciary or in any other branch of the Government of both," making him fall under the second group of retirees under R.A. No. 910 per the Britanico ruling. He claims that his "forced retirement" in 1987 under R.A. No. 1616 was erroneous and, therefore, he should have been retired under R.A. No. 910.
The OCA's response is that this question was already resolved against Judge Ambrosio in the resolution of this Court of December 12, 1995.
Secondly, Judge Ambrosio says that his retirement on February 2, 1995 can be considered as falling under the third category of retirees, i.e., those who voluntarily retire at age 60 after having rendered at least 20 years service in the Government, the last five years of which were continuously rendered in the judiciary" by applying his leave credits (137 days of vacation leave and 30 days forfeitable leave for a total of 167 days) to his length of service in order to give him five years of Continuous service in the judiciary. He says that his retirement was brought about by his diabetic condition and not because he intended to run as councilor of Quezon City in the May 8, 1995 elections.
The OCA's response is that Judge Ambrosio was remiss in failing to file said application on time. Disability retirement presupposes his illness or disability during his incumbency. Judge Ambrosio's claim raises a Suspicion that his alleged disability is only an afterthought.
Thirdly, Judge Ambrosio contends that his second resignation should be deemed effective March 20, 1995, the date when he filed his certificate of candidacy, so that he will only be 2 months and 14 days short of the required 5 years continuous service, which can be covered by leave credits.
The OCA has no response to this contention.
Finally, Judge Ambrosio contends that the interruption in his covered services from February 1, 1987 to May 14, 1990, should be his leave credits so that he may be considered to have rendered five years continuous service when he resigned on February 2, 1995.
OCA's response is as follows: The Court allowed the tacking of leave credits of judges who were reorganized in 1986 but subsequently reappointed, provided that their leave credits were sufficient to cover the gap in their government service. However, this ruling does not apply to Judges who were reappointed after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution on February 2, 1987. Government services of judges who were laid off in consequence of the reorganization of the judiciary and subsequently reappointed after February 2, 1987 were not considered continuous even if they had sufficient leave credits to cover the gap in their government service. Judge Ambrosio was reappointed in 1990, thus the abovementioned ruling cannot be applied to him. (Minute Res., Adm. Matter No. 88-11-3964-MTC (Re: Request of Judges to consider their services as continuous), March 7, 1989)
The Court finds the first contention to be meritorious. The allowance of Judge Ambrosio's claim for retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910 based on his retirement on February 1, 1987 is justified based on his forced resignation effective that day. Contrary to the OCA's statement that Judge Ambrosio's claim was resolved by the Court's resolution of December 12, 1995, what was actually resolved there was the claim for benefits based on his second retirement in 1995, not the one in 1987. As Judge Ambrosio retired in 1987 pursuant to a judicial reorganization, his retirement can fall under the second category of retirees under R.A. No. 910 as enumerated in the Britanico case. At that time, he had already rendered at least 20 years of government service.
Accordingly, the Court RESOLVED to GRANT the application for optional retirement under R.A. No 910 of Judge Efren N. Ambrosio with regard to his retirement on February 1, 1987, subject to deduction of any amount he has received under R.A. No. 1616 pursuant to the resolution of the Court, dated March 10, 1987, in A.M. No. 5699-Ret.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
