Republic
of the
Supreme Court
EN
BANC
Re:
Application for Retirement A.M.
No. 14061- Ret
of
Judge Moslemen T. Macarambon
under
Republic Act No. 910, Present:
as
amended by Republic Act No. 9946.
CARPIO,
*VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
*MENDOZA,
SERENO,
REYES, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated:
June 19, 2012
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
BRION, J.:
For consideration are: (1) the letter dated September
15, 2011 of Judge Moslemen T. Macarambon (Judge
Macarambon); and (2) the Memorandum of Court Administrator Jose Midas P.
Marquez (Court Administrator), both
addressed to former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona regarding the request of Judge Macarambon to
retire under Republic Act (RA) No. 910, as amended by RA No. 9946.
Judge
Macarambon was a judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for a period of 18 years, 1 month and 16 days. Before reaching
the optional retirement age of 60, Judge Macarambon transferred to the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
having been appointed as Commissioner by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
(President Arroyo). He served as
COMELEC Commissioner for less than a year and was no longer re-appointed after
having been bypassed thrice by the Commission on Appointments. Judge Macarambon was subsequently appointed by
President Arroyo as President/CEO of the National Transmission Corporation but
he resigned from the position less than a year after when he failed to receive
a reappointment from President Benigno C. Aquino III.
In his
letter, Judge Macarambon requests that he be allowed to retire under Section 1 of RA No. 910, as amended,
the pertinent portions of which read:
SECTION 1. When a Justice of
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or of the Court of
Tax Appeals, or a Judge of the regional trial court, metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court, shari'a district court,
shari'a circuit court, or any other court hereafter established who has rendered at least fifteen (15)
years 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/her incapacity to
discharge the duties of his/her office as certified by the Supreme Court,
he/she shall receive during the residue of his/her natural life, in the manner
hereinafter provided, the salary which plus the highest monthly aggregate of
transportation, representation and other allowances such as personal economic
relief allowance (PERA) and additional compensation allowance which he/she was
receiving at the time of his/her retirement, or resignation, and non-wage benefit
in the form of education scholarship to one (1) child of all Justices and
Judges to free tuition fee in a state university or college: Provided, That such grant will cover
only one (1) bachelor's degree. When a Justice of the Sandiganbayan or of the Court
of Tax Appeals, or a Judge of the regional trial court, metropolitan trial
court, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court, shari'a district
court, shari'a circuit court, or any other court hereafter established has attained the age of sixty (60) years
and has rendered at least fifteen (15) years service in the Government, the
last three (3) of which shall have been continuously rendered in the Judiciary,
he/she shall likewise be entitled to retire and receive during the residue of
his/her natural life also in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary
plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, representation and other
allowances such as personal economic relief allowance (PERA) and additional
compensation allowance which he/she was then receiving and the non-wage benefit
in the form of education scholarship to one (1) child of all Justices and
Judges to free tuition fee in a state university or college: x
x x .
Judge Macarambon asserts
that Section 1 allows the payment of retirement benefits to a judge of the RTC
who resigns by reason of incapacity to discharge the duties of his office.
Citing the case of Re: Application for
Retirement under R.A. No. 910 of Associate Justice Ramon B. Britanico of the
Intermediate Appellate Court, he
posits that his appointment as COMELEC Commissioner incapacitated him to
discharge his duties as an RTC judge on account of his submission to the will
of the political authority and appointing power.
As an alternative, he
appeals that he be allowed to retire under the second sentence of Section 1
considering that he has rendered a total of 18 years, 1 month and 16 days of
judicial service and a total of 35 years of government service. Judge Macarabon claims that while he was short
of the minimum age requirement of 60, he believes that the Courts ruling in Re: Gregorio G. Pineda[1]
is applicable to his case where the Court brushed aside such requirement and
considered the retirees career which was marked with competence, integrity,
and dedication to public service.
In his Memorandum, the Court
Administrator disagreed with Judge Macarambons position. The Court
Administrator averred:
We humbly submit that Judge
Macarambons case is different from that of Justice Britanicos. Justice
Britanico, together with the other Members of the Judiciary at that time, was
ordered by then President Corazon C. Aquino, through Proclamation No. 1, to
tender their courtesy resignations. The decision as to whether or not they
would stay in their office was the prerogative of then President Aquino. On the
contrary, the prerogative to accept the appointment as a COMELEC Commissioner
depended entirely on Judge Macarambon. He had the choice of whether or not to
accept the appointment of being a Commissioner or to stay as a RTC Judge.
Therefore, his appointment as a COMELEC Commissioner did not render him
incapacitated to discharge the duties of his office as a RTC Judge.
Nonetheless, based on the
documents submitted, Judge Macarambon may retire under R.A. No. 1616, as he
meets all the requirements for retirement under the said law, i.e., has been in
the government service as of 01 June 1977 and has rendered at least twenty (20)
years government service, the last three (3) years of which have been
continuous.
The sole issue is whether we
can allow a judge who voluntarily resigned from his judicial office before
reaching the optional retirement age to receive retirement benefits under RA
No. 910, as amended.
Resignation and retirement
are two distinct concepts carrying different meanings and legal consequences in
our jurisdiction. While an employee can
resign at any time, retirement entails the compliance with certain age and
service requirements specified by law and jurisprudence. Resignation stems from the employees own
intent and volition to resign and relinquish his/her post.[2]
Retirement takes effect by operation of
law. In terms of severance to ones employment, resignation absolutely cuts-off
the employment relationship in general; in retirement, the employment
relationship endures for the purpose of the grant of retirement benefits.
RA No. 910, as amended
allows the grant of retirement benefits to a justice or judge who has either
retired from judicial service or resigned from judicial office.
In case of retirement, a
justice or judge must show compliance with the age and service requirements as
provided in RA No. 910, as amended. The second sentence of Section 1 imposes the following minimum
requirements for optional retirement:
(a) must have attained the age of sixty (60)
years old; and
(b) must have rendered at least
fifteen (15) years service in the Government, the last three
(3) of which shall have been continuously rendered in
the Judiciary.
Strict compliance with the
age and service requirements under the law is the rule and the grant of
exception remains to be on a case to case basis.[3] We have ruled that the Court allows seeming exceptions to these fixed
rules for certain judges and
justices only and whenever there are ample reasons to grant such exception.[4]
On the other hand,
resignation under RA No. 910, as amended must be by reason of incapacity to discharge the duties of the
office. In Britanico, we held that
the resignation contemplated under RA No. 910, as amended must have the element
of involuntariness on the part of the justice or judge. More than physical or mental disability to
discharge the judicial office, the involuntariness must spring from the intent
of the justice or judge who would not have parted with his/her judicial
employment were it not for the presence of circumstances and/or factors beyond
his/her control.
In either of the two
instances above-mentioned, Judge Macarambons case does not render him eligible
to retire under RA No. 910, as amended.
First, Judge Macarambon failed to satisfy the age requirement as
shown by the records and by his own admission that he was less than 60 years of
age when he resigned from his judicial office before transferring to the
COMELEC. Likewise, he failed to satisfy the service requirement not having been
in continuous service with the Judiciary for three (3) years prior to his
retirement.
Second, Judge Macarambons resignation was not by reason of
incapacity to discharge
the duties of the office. His separation
from judicial employment was of his own accord and volition. Thus, our ruling
in Britanico cannot be properly
applied to his case since his resignation was voluntary.
Third, we find no exceptional
reasons to justify Judge Macarambons request. In Re: Gregorio Pineda, the case cited by Judge Macarambon, the Court
fully explained how a liberal approach in the application of retirement laws
should be construed, thus:
The rule is that retirement laws are construed liberally in
favor of the retiring employee. However, when in the interest of liberal
construction the Court allows seeming exceptions to fixed rules for certain
retired Judges or Justices, there are ample reasons behind each grant of an
exception. The crediting of accumulated leaves to make up for lack of required
age or length of service is not done indiscriminately. It is always on a case
to case basis.
In some instances, the lacking element-such as the time to
reach an age limit or comply with length of service is de minimis. It could be
that the amount of accumulated leave credits is tremendous in comparison to the
lacking period of time.
More important, there must be present an essential factor
before an application under the Plana or Britanico rulings may be granted. The
Court allows a making up or compensating for lack of required age or service
only if satisfied that the career of the retiree was marked by competence,
integrity, and dedication to the public service; it was only a bowing to policy
considerations and an acceptance of the realities of political will which
brought him or her to premature retirement.[5]
In this
case, Judge Macarambon failed to present similar circumstances, i.e., the presence of available and
sufficient accumulated leave credits which we may tack in to comply with the
age requirement. A verification from the Leave Division, OCA shows that at the
time he left the Court on November 5, 2007, Judge Macarambon only had 514 vacation
leaves and 79 sick leaves which are insufficient to cover the gap in the age of
retirement. Moreover, these accumulated
leave credits were all forwarded to the COMELEC upon his transfer. Further, we
already stated that unlike in Britanico,
the nature of his separation from his judicial office was voluntary.
All told, we are not unmindful of Judge Macarambons
long and dedicated service in the government for which he is undeniably entitled
to be rewarded. We agree with the Court
Administrator that although Judge Macarambon is not qualified to retire under
RA No. 910, as amended, he may retire under RA No. 1616 based on the documents
he had presented before the Court which meets the age and service requirements
under the said law.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we resolve to:
(1) NOTE the Memorandum dated April 3, 2012 of Court Administrator
Jose Midas P. Marquez; and
(2) DENY the letter-request dated September 15, 2011 of Judge
Moslemen T. Macarambon to retire under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by
Republic Act No. 9946 for lack of legal basis.
Judge Macarambon is hereby ADVISED to file an application for
optional retirement under Republic Act No. 1616 with the Government Service
Insurance System, subject to the submission of the requirements for retirement,
and to the deduction of the retirement gratuity he received from his previous
retirement, if there be any, and subject finally to the availability of funds
and the usual clearance requirements.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
(On Official Leave)
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice MARTIN S. VILLARAMA,
JR. Associate Justice (On Official Leave) JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Associate Justice ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
*
On official leave.
[1] A.M. No. 6789, July 13, 1990, 187 SCRA 469,475.
[2] Joseph E. Estrada v. Aniano Desierto, G.R. Nos.
146710-15, March 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 452, 496.
[3] Cena v.
Civil Service Commission, G.R. No.
97419 July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 179, 187, citing Re: Application for Retirement Benefits
of Former Judge Gregorio G. Pineda, supra
note 1.
[4] Ibid.
[5]
Ibid.