Scra 2112
Scra 2112
Scra 2112
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 1 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
93
CASTRO, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 2 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
_______________
1 When this suit was instituted below in August, 1970, all the
respondents were full colonels of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
who were due for compulsory retirement on January 21, 1971 and April
1, 1971, except Cleofe and Federis who retired on April 10, 1970 and
Hipolito who retired on December 5, 1970.
94
Philippines who retired after June 22, 1957 but before the
effectivity of R.A. 4902 on June 17, 1967. Resolving this
issue, the court below declared that the said "benefit of
converting lump sum to monthly pension as provided in
Sec. 2 of Republic Act 4902 may be enjoyed by any qualified
member of the Armed Forces covered by the Armed Forces
Retirement Act whose effective date of retirement is after
June 22, 1957." Necessarily implied from the judgment a
quo is the conclusion that the privilege in question may be
availed of by any qualified member of the Armed Forces
who retires even after June 17, 1967, the date of effectivity
of R.A. 4902.
We set aside, for the reasons hereinafter stated.
The basic law governing the retirement of military
personnel is R.A. 340, otherwise known as the "Armed2
Forces Retirement Act," which took effect on July 20, 1948.
Under this law, any person in the military service who
retires may elect either (a) a lump sum payment in the
form of "a gratuity equivalent to one month of his base and
longevity pay on the date of retirement for every year of
service;" or (b) "an annual retirement pay equivalent to two
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 3 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
_______________
95
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 4 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
96
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 5 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
"Sec. 2. Persons who were retired and paid gratuity under said
Republic Act Numbered Three hundred forty, as amended, with
effective date of retirement prior to June twenty-two, nineteen
hundred fifty-seven, and who come within the purview of clauses (a)
and (b) of the preceding section may, at their option, elect to receive
in lieu of such gratuity paid to them the annual retirement pay as
provided in Section 2 of the said Act; and upon making such
election, said persons shall, subject to the provisions and limitations
hereinafter provided, be entitled to receive said annual retirement.
The option herein granted may be exercised within five years from
the date of the approval of this amendatory Act by the widows
and/or minor children of the said retirees who could not exercise the
said option by reason of death."
"Sec. 2. Persons who were retired and paid gratuity under said
Republic Act Numbered Three hundred forty and/or Republic Act
Numbered Sixteen hundred sixteen, as amended, with effective
date of retirement after June twenty-two, nineteen hundred fifty-
seven and who come within the purview of clauses (a) and (b) of the
preceding section may, at their option, elect to receive, in lieu of
such gratuity paid to them the annual retirement pay as provided
in Section two of the said Act; and upon making such election, said
persons shall, subject to the provisions and limitations hereinafter
provided, be entitled to receive the annual retirement pay as
provided in Section two of the said Act. The option herein granted
may be exercised within five years from the date of the approval of
:his amendatory Act by the widows and/or minor children of the
97
said retirees who could not exercise the said option by reason of
death. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 6 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
"The bill seeks to further amend Republic Act No. 1862 by authorizing
officers and enlisted men who retired after June 22, 1957, and who
received lump sum gratuity, to receive monthly pension. This
amendment will, in effect, remove any inequities in the Armed Forces
Retirement Act;"
(c) the fact that while the said House Bill 1271 originally set
December 31, 1965 as the deadline date until which the proposed
privilege of conversion may be exercised, this deadline date was
deleted in the finally approved version of the bill which became R.A.
4902.
It is our view that the foregoing citations are inadequate tests for
determining the legislative intent behind the provision of R.A. 4902
in question. It will be noted that both the cited explanatory note
and the remarks of Sen. Diokno refer to members of the armed
forces who had already retired and had received a lump sum
gratuity and "now desire to convert" their lump sum gratuity to
monthly annuity. Indeed, the gist of the petitioners' theory, with
which we agree, is precisely that the intendment of the law, as
disclosed in the clear and unmistakable language of the questioned
provision of R.A.
98
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 7 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
"The conversion privilege under Republic Act 4902 can be availed of only
by those who were retired AFTER June 22, 1957, but BEFORE the
effectivity of Republic Act 4902 on June 17, 1967. This position is
supported by the explanatory note of the said law which amended
Republic Act 1862. By necessary
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 8 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
304.
4 Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. vs. Gimenez, L-17931, Feb. 28, 1963, 7
SCRA 350; Philippine Ass'n of Government Retirees vs GSIS, L-20503, June
30, 1965, 14 SCRA 619; Resins, Inc. vs. Auditor General, L-17888, Oct. 29,
1968, 25 SCRA 756.
99
implication, the persons referred to are those who were retired and had
received the gratuity in lump sum after June 22, 1957, but prior to the
approval of the Act on June 17, 1967. The pertinent portion of the
explanatory note reads:
'Pursuant to Republic 1862, officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines who retired from the service under the provisions of Republic
Act No. 340, as amended, with effective date of retirement on or prior to
January 1, 1955, were authorized to receive annual retirement pay in lieu of
the lump sum gratuity they received upon their retirement. This Act was
amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2331 and 3462, approved on June 19, 1959 and
June 16, 1962, respectively, thereby extending the same benefit of monthly
pension to the officers and men who retired on or prior to June 22, 1957. Those
who retired thereafter and who were also paid lump sum gratuity upon their
retirement, are not authorized to received annual retirement pay in view of the
absence of similar legislation.'
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 9 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
100
SEPARATE OPINION
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 10 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
101
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 11 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
102
those who retired after December 31, 1965. And therefore, it is the
purpose of the Committee when the period of amendment comes, to
simply change this particular section to say 'with effective date of
retirement on or after June twenty second, Nineteen Hundred and
Fifty Seven' because that was the original deadline date by Republic
Act No. 3462. x x x
"But apart from that, Mr. President, the point of view of the
Committee is that when you have rendered equal service, you
should be given equal retirement benefits. And that is precisely why,
as I said, when we come to the period of amendments, the
Committee's purpose is to eliminate the deadline date and to allow
those who retired and who have obtained a lump-sum retirement
and outlived it, to convert it into monthly. After all, the government
is prepared or was prepared to give them a monthly annuity. They
have received the lump sum but they have outlived it. Why should
we deny them the monthly payment afterwards. x x x
"Senator DIOKNO. It is the intention of the committee subject of
course to the approval of the House, to submit an amendment to
eliminate the clause 'sixty-five' and leave this open so that there will
be no further amendatory measure. x x x
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 12 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
103
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 13 of 14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 052 22/10/2018, 1(53 PM
···oOo···
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001669a52db60b257ec44003600fb002c009e/p/APK523/?username=Guest Page 14 of 14