O he was at that time already ranked as a commander

o He was, at that time, already ranked as a
Commander in the Philippine Navy. He then chose to
avail of the monthly retirement pay with the option to
receive in advance and in lump sum an amount
equivalent to 3 years’ worth for the first three years
after his retirement.
 The AFP granted Reblora’s claim of retirement benefits and
immediately paid the latter the sum of P722,297.16 as
advance lump, HOWEVER , the AFP did not include Reblora’s
civilian government service at the DILG.
o The AFP ONLY considered actual military service i.e.,
covering the period between May 21, 1973 up to May
22, 2003 or a period of only 30 years.
 Reblora disagreed with computation of the AFP.
o He insisted that the computation of his retirement
benefit should include the period of his civilian
government service at the DILG immediately before
he entered military service, which is 4 years and 5
months.
o It is argued that the computation of the AFP does not
reflect the true length of his military service of thirty-
four (34) years and that it is, in fact, a full four (4)
years short. Petitioner thus claims that he is entitled
to P135,991.81 in additional retirement benefit.
 After an unsuccessful bid to obtain a favorable legal opinion
from the AFP Judge Advocate General, Reblora requested
assistance from the COA for the collection of his claimed
additional retirement benefit.
 COA : DENIED Reblora’s claim.
o COA agreed that the civilian service at the DILG
should and ought to be included as part of his active

Rule 64 & 65
service in the military for purposes of computing his
retirement benefits under PD No. 1638.
o However, since his civilian service should be included
as part of his active service in the military, the COA
opined that petitioner should also have been
considered as compulsorily retired on 22 May 2000
and not on 22 May 2003.
o COA explained that as of 22 May 2000, Reblora has
already reached the age of 56 with a total of 31 years
in active service, inclusive of his 4 years in the DILG,
which fulfilled the conditions for compulsory
retirement under Section 5(a) of PD No. 1638, as
amended.
o Verily, the COA found that, applying the provisions of
PD No. 1638 as amended, Reblora was not
actually underpaid but was rather overpaid his
retirement benefit in the amount of
P77,807.16.
 Reblora filed a motion for reconsideration, but the COA
remained steadfast in its Resolution.
o Aggrieved, Reblora questioned the Decision and
Resolution of the COA via the present Rule 45
petition before the SC.
ISSUE: WON Rule 45 is the proper remedy?
HELD: NO. Decisions and resolutions of the COA are reviewable by
this Court, not via an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, as is the
present petition, but thru a special civil action of certiorari under
Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Section 2 of Rule
64, which implements the mandate of Section 7 of Article IX-A of
the Constitution,19 is clear on this:
Section 2. Mode of Review.—A judgment or final order or
resolution of the Commission on Elections and the
Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved