Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > December 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24521 December 11, 1967 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS v. RAMON A. DIAZ, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24521. December 11, 1967.]

EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, Petitioner, v. HON. RAMON A. DIAZ, Executive Secretary HON. MACARIO PERALTA, JR, Secretary of National Defense, GEN. ALFREDO M. SANTOS, Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, and COL. MAXIMO JANTE, Chief of Finance, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Respondents.

T. M. Guray and C.C. de Jesus for Petitioner.

Solicitor General for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT ACT; COMPLETED SATISFACTORY SERVICE REQUIRED; SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS OF BENEFITS. — Section 1, R.A. 340 (Armed Forces Retirement Act) clearly provides that continuous active service during the thirty-year period must be satisfactory in order that the benefits under the Act may be granted. Said benefits may be withheld where satisfactoriness of service is put to doubt by pending criminal charges against the retiree.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Col. Edilberto Ramos was ordered compulsorily retired effective September 22, 1963, for having completed thirty (30) years of service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, pursuant to the Armed Forces Retirement Act (Rep. Act 340). Said order of retirement, dated October 25, 1963, was signed by the Chief of Staff, A.F.P., for the General Headquarters, upon authority of the President of the Philippines.

Several criminal cases, however, were pending against Ramos. For this reason, payment of retirement benefits to him under said Republic Act 340 was withheld, until he obtains the proper clearances of these charges and of his money and property accountabilities. Ramos wrote three letters to the President 1 praying for payment of said benefits under the Act, and on April 27, 1965, the Adjutant General of the Armed Forces, signing for the Acting Chief of Staff, wrote to Ramos 2 informing him that the Office of the President, in its 5th Indorsement to the Secretary of National Defense, denied the payment of his retirement benefits under the Act until he is cleared of the criminal charges against him.

On May 12, 1965, Col. Edilberto Ramos filed before Us the present petition for Mandamus against Executive Secretary Ramon Diaz, Secretary of National Defense Macario Peralta, Jr., Chief of Staff, A.F.P., General Alfredo Santos and Col. Maximo Jante, Chief of Finance, A.F.P., to compel the payment of retirement benefits under Republic Act 340, as amended.

At issue is whether the payment of benefits granted to members of the Armed Forces under the Armed Forces Retirement Act, as amended, may be withheld pending resolution of criminal charges against the retiree.

A reproduction of the pertinent portion of the Act providing for compulsory retirement is in order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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." (Sec. 1 [b] of R.A. 340, Emphasis ours).

It is the position of Ramos that the fact of his compulsory retirement itself operates as the determination of the satisfactoriness of his service, encompassing the fulfillment of all the conditions required by law and immediately vesting in him automatically his rights to the benefits under the law; that the payment of such benefits is mandatory under Section 2 of the Act because he is given the option to receive a gratuity equivalent to a month’s base and longevity pay on the date of retirement for every year of service or an annual retirement pay equivalent to 2-1/2% of the annual base and longevity pay; that such benefits are under Sec. 16-A of this Act and Article 302 of the Civil Code, not subject to attachment, levy, execution or any tax whatsoever.

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 under the law especially when circumstances are such that a doubt is cast upon the satisfactoriness of his service.

In the case at bar, the letter of the Office of the President, dated October 25, 1963 ordering Ramos’ retirement 3 under Republic Act No. 340, as amended, 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 several criminal charges against him in the courts. 4 Some of these cases were for estafa and malversation of public funds alleged to have been committed during his service in the Armed Forces. Understandably, the letter ordering his retirement (Annex 1) provided for the payment of benefits only after showing satisfactoriness of his service through the submission of clearances of his criminal charges and of his money and property accountabilities. While Ramos alleges that only one case is pending, the others having been dismissed, a conviction in the same bears against the satisfactoriness of his service which would be reason enough to bar him from the benefits of the Act.

Ramos’ contention that withholding of the retirement benefits is equivalent to his conviction and in violation of the presumption of innocence, is untenable. Ramos is not being presumed guilty of or punished for any offense; hence, the presumption of innocence is not violated. 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.

Petitioner also relies on the wording of the letter 5 from the Office of the President, signed by the Executive Secretary and addressed to the Secretary of National Defense which in part stated that Ramos." . . is hereby retired from the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the rank of Colonel effective September 22, 1963, the date he completed 30 years of creditable service and when he therefore became due for automatic and compulsory retirement." Ramos points out that Webster’s dictionary defines "creditable service" as "that which is sufficiently good to bring esteem, deserving of praise." He relies on the use of the phrase in claiming automatic grant of the benefits. However, the same letter states that to dispel any doubt "the payment of the corresponding gratuity and any other benefits to which subject officer is entitled shall be held pending resolution of the satisfactoriness of his service which shall be determined by this office only upon submittal of clearances of his criminal charges and of his money and property accountabilities, subject to the usual accounting and auditing requirements." In the light of the clear terms of the letter, "creditable service" could not have the import of Ramos’ allegations. Mandamus would only lie if the petitioner’s right is clear and indubitable.

WHEREFORE, the petition for mandamus is hereby denied. No cost. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Feb. 25, 1964, Annex B, p. 15 of the Record; Jan. 21, 1965, Annex C, p. 26 of the Record; Feb. 11, 1965, Annex D, p. 32 of the Record.

2. Annex E, p. 49 of the Record.

3. Annex 1 of Respondent’s Answer, p. 61 of the Record.

4. Annex F, 5th Indorsement, p. 50 of the Record.

5. Annex 1 to Respondents’ Answer, p. 61 of the Record.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15829 December 4, 1967 - ROMAN R. SANTOS v. FLORENCIO MORENO

  • G.R. No. L-24717 December 4, 1967 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28315 December 8, 1967 - AMBROCIO JANAIRO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28358 December 8, 1967 - JULIAN G. GINETE v. UBALDO Y. ARCANGEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18857 December 11, 1967 - CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. ESTEBAN M. SADANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21520 December 11, 1967 - PLARIDEL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-21616 December 11, 1967 - GERTRUDES F. CUAYCONG, ET AL. v. LUIS D. CUAYCONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21849 December 11, 1967 - LOURDES VDA. DE MAGALONA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22325 December 11, 1967 - CORAZON M. ESPINO v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22471 December 11, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOLOMON A. LIZARDO

  • G.R. No. L-23508 December 11, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLY P. CORTEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23817 December 11, 1967 - FRANCISCA LAZO v. J.M. TUASON & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24221 December 11, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24521 December 11, 1967 - EDILBERTO M. RAMOS v. RAMON A. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25245 December 11, 1967 - FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAURICIO ALILLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28348 December 15, 1967 - BERNARDINO ABES, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21441 December 15, 1967 - RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 546 December 18, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINADOR F. FLORES v. LUIS R. LOZADA

  • G.R. No. L-17587 September 12, 1967 - PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION v. LUI SHE

  • G.R. No. L-22585 December 18, 1967 - NICANOR B. PAGKALINAWAN v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22753 December 18, 1967 - JESUS RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23220 December 18, 1967 - CIRIACO INGCO v. BENEDICTO M. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23699 December 18, 1967 - JUANITO CHAN v. GREGORIO B. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-21422 December 18, 1967 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27826 December 18, 1967 - PASTORA GASPAY, ET AL. v. CESAR SANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24510 & L-24525 December 18, 1967 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL. v. JESUS P. MORFE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23191 December 19, 1967 - GERONIMO G, ESGUERRA, ET AL. v. FELIPE M. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22269 December 20, 1967 - AMANDO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23661 December 20, 1967 - JOSE MANANGOL BARTOLOME, ET AL. v. JUSTO BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. L-24572 December 20, 1967 - PHILIPPINE POSTAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22265 December 22, 1967 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GOODRICH INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CO.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22512 & L-22514 December 22, 1967 - ANDRES E. LAZARO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21150 December 26, 1967 - AMADO CAYANAN, ET AL. v. LEON DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21577 December 26, 1967 - REMEDIOS C. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22022 December 26, 1967 - EMILIANO T. RAMIREZ v. JOSE SY CHIT

  • G.R. No. L-23135 December 26, 1967 - MARIANO SUMILANG v. SATURNINA RAMAGOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23764 December 26, 1967 - JUAN SUMERARIZ v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23887 December 26, 1967 - AGO TIMBER CORPORATION v. JESUS S. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24200 December 26, 1967 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26947 December 26, 1967 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28359 December 26, 1967 - ABDULLAH SANGKI v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28395 December 26, 1967 - LILIA PEÑA, ET AL. v. DAMASO S. TENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22517 December 26, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO VERZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23986 December 26, 1967 - ERNESTO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. JACINTO CALLANTA

  • G.R. No. L-28349 December 28, 1967 - CONSUELO V. CALO, ET AL. v. MANUEL L. ENAGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28206 December 28, 1967 - PRISCILO G. INTING v. ZOILA L. CLARIN

  • G.R. No. L-18649 December 29, 1967 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-20156 December 29, 1967 - IN RE: MANUEL TO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20865 September 29, 1967 - ASELA P. TACTAQUIN v. JOSE B. PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-21293 December 29, 1967 - REGINO G. AGUIZAP v. EUGENIO BASILIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21641 December 29, 1967 - MANUEL IBAVIOSA v. BENIGNO TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22057 December 29, 1967 - ROMUALDO MONTESINO, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO RULLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23405 December 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BATO

  • G.R. No. L-23773-74 December 29, 1967 - FRANCISCO PINEDA, ET AL. v. PASTOR DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-28328 December 29, 1967 - NICANOR C. IBUNA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28396 December 29, 1967 - AGRIPINO DEMAFILES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20894 December 29, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER M. PERETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22169 December 29, 1967 - SERGIO ALABAT, ET AL. v. TORIBIA TANDOG VDA. DE ALABAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21309 December 29, 1967 - BERNARDO PICARDAL, ET AL. v. CENON LLADAS

  • G.R. No. L-23504 December 29, 1967 - ALBERTO DE JOYA v. JUAN T. DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23886 December 29, 1967 - FRANCISCO PERIQUET v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28340 December 29, 1967 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO, ET AL.