MELINDA L. OCAMPO v. COA, GR No. 188716, 2013-06-10
Facts:
On 1 March 1996, Ocampo retired from the National
Electrification Administration. Ocampo availed of the lump sum payment with a
net gratuity of P358,917.01.
Three days thereafter, Ocampo assumed office as Board Member
of the ERB. Upon expiration of her term, Ocampo retired under Executive Order
No. 172
Ocampo availed of the five year lump sum benefit and the
corresponding monthly pension to be paid out for the remainder of her life.
This first gratuity lump sum payment based on 60 months or 5 years advance
salary was immediately received by Ocampo after her retirement. Likewise,
Ocampo began to receive her monthly pension
On 25 August 1998, Ocampo was again appointed, this time as
Chairman of ERB with a term of 4 years.
On 15 August 2001, the ERB was abolished and replaced by the
Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC)
For the second time, Ocampo sought retirement under
Executive Order No. 172.
However, on post-audit of the transaction with Ocampo as
payee, State Auditor issued Notice of Suspension (1) suspending payment of the
amount of P1,452,613.71 covering Ocampo's second retirement gratuity computed
on a pro-rata basis equivalent to only two years, eleven months, and twenty
days; and (2) requiring submission by the ERC of "legal basis for [the
payment of] retirement gratuity twice under the same law (EO 172)."
Issues:
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ONLY THE
BENEFITS CORRESPONDING TO HER RETIREMENT AS ERB CHAIR, AND THE PERIOD DURING
WHICH SHE SERVED AS MEMBER OF THE SAID BOARD SHOULD BE MERELY TACKED IN TO THE
PERIOD DURING WHICH SHE SERVED AS SUCH CHAIR.
Ruling:
Textually, the rules on the retirement benefits under
Executive Order No. 172, in relation to Republic Act No. 3595, are:
1.
The employee must have completed his term of
office, or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of his office, or dies
while in the service, or resigns at any time after reaching the age of sixty
years but before the expiration of his term of office;
2.
The lump sum is to be paid out according to the
employee's number of years of service with the ERB;
3.
The lump sum gratuity to be paid is the
employee's salary for one year, not to exceed five years;
4.
The lump sum is based on the employee's last
annual salary that he was receiving at the time of retirement, incapacity,
death or resignation, as the case may be;
5.
In case of resignation, the employee should have
rendered not less than twenty years of service in the government.
The employee shall receive an annuity payable monthly during
the residue of his natural life equivalent to the amount of monthly salary he
was receiving on the date of retirement, incapacity or resignation.
We disagree with Ocampo that COA should not have audited the
first retirement benefit paid to Ocampo as ERB Board Member. COA's plenary
authority, consisting of pre and post audit, is enshrined in the Constitution,
and as oft observed in jurisprudence. COA validly looked into the government
expenditure relating to the first retirement benefit paid to Ocampo because she
now claims payment of a second retirement benefit under the same law. Part of
the scope of the COA's power, authority and duty is to "promulgate
accounting and auditing rules, and regulations including those for the
prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant,
or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and
properties."
At the outset, it must be clarified that the claim of Ocampo
for 2 sets of retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1568 is not, strictly
speaking, a claim for double compensation prohibited under the first paragraph
of Section 8, Article IX-B of the Constitution. Claims for double retirement
benefits fall under the prohibition against the receipt of double compensation
when they are based on exactly the same services and on the same creditable
period. This is not, however, the case herein.
In this case, Ocampo is not claiming 2 sets of retirement
benefits for one and the same creditable period. Rather, Ocampo is claiming a
set of retirement benefits for each of her 2 retirements from the ERB. In other
words, each set of retirement benefits claimed by Ocampo is based on distinct
creditable periods i.e., one for her term as member of the ERB and another for
her term as chairman of the same agency.
What Ocampo is merely claiming, therefore, is that she is
entitled to 2 sets of retirement benefits for her 2 retirements from the ERB
under Republic Act No. 1568, as amended. Hence, in order to resolve her claim,
what is only required is an interpretation of Republic Act No. 1568, as
amended.
There is nothing in Republic Act No. 1568 as amended by
Republic Act No. 3595 that allows a qualified retiree to therein recover 2 sets
of retirement benefits as a consequence of 2 retirements from the same covered
agency. As worded, Republic Act No. 1568, as amended, only allows payment of
only a single gratuity and a single annuity out of a single compensable
retirement from any one of the covered agencies.
In fact, the contingency of multiple retirements from the
same covered agency could not have been contemplated by the law. We can confirm
this if we take into consideration that Republic Act No. 1568 is a law that,
first and foremost, was intended to cover the retirement benefits of the chairmen
and members of the COA and of the COMELEC and that it has been the consistent
policy of the State, indeed since the 1935 Constitution, to prohibit any
appointment of more than one term in the said constitutional bodies. Hence,
Republic Act No. 1568, as it was passed and in its present form, cannot be said
to have sanctioned the payment of more than one set of retirement benefits to a
retiree as a consequence of multiple retirements in one agency.
The mere circumstance that members and chairmen of the ERB
may be appointed to serve therein for more than one term (but not for two consecutive
terms) does not mean that they would be entitled a set of retirement benefits
under Republic Act No. 1568 for each of their completed term. Section 1 of
Executive Order No. 172 merely extends to members and chairmen of the ERB
similar retirement benefits that retiring members and chairmen of the COA and
COMELEC are entitled to under the law. Similar does not mean greater.
Since Republic Act No. 1568, as amended by Republic Act No.
3595 clearly does not justify the payment of more than one gratuity and one
annuity to a qualified retiree, Ocampo cannot claim two (2) sets of retirement
benefits under the same law.
Comments
Post a Comment