In the case of justice when president aquino issued

In the case of Justice (?) when President Aquino issued an
order requiring all appointive public officials to tender their
courtesy resignations, including the members of the Supreme
Court.
And in the case of (?), at the time of the issuance of the
order to tender courtesy resignation, he had 3 more years to
qualify under the retirement law of the Justices, RA 910. Take
note that retirement laws are liberally applied in favor of the
retiree. So in his case, he had certain months of accumulated
leaves. These were added to his length of service to enable
him to reach the required minimum number of years. Also in
the case of Justice Palma of the Supreme Court, he was short
of 2 years to qualify under the retirement law. And so the
leave benefits in his favor were added to his length of service.
In the case of CRUZ V. TANTUICO , this was already
asked in the 1996 Bar. The matter of the order to revoke the
retirement benefits of Cruz where she paid using fake checks.
So, there was an order by the COA to revoke her retirement
benefits when she applied for retirement. The Supreme Court
ruled that retirement pay may not be applied to her
indebtedness to the government. Also, there is a provision in
the old Administrative Code authorizing the auditor to direct
the proper officer to withhold payment of money due to a
public officer or his estate and to apply the same to his cash
shortage. But nonetheless the Supreme Court ruled that this
is unlawful, and that the retirement pay due to the officer
cannot be made to apply to his indebtedness to his office.
In that Cruz v. Tantuico, Tantuico refused the payment to
Cruz. But in TANTUICO V. DOMINGO , when Tantuico applied
for retirement, nabaliktad! *Class laughs* The successor of
Tantuico refused the payment of Tantuico’s retirement pay on
the ground of Tantuico’s cash shortages. So what happened
in this case of Tantuico was that Domingo actually denied in
GSIS the clearance of Tantuico. And so the Supreme Court
ruled again that retirement pay cannot be applied to
indebtedness. (basig katong napildi siya sa Cruz, nangutang
dayon si Tantuico ug taman-taman katong hapit na siya mu-
retire)
Now even under the GSIS law, it provides that the
benefits granted under the GSIS Act shall not be the subject to
attachment, garnishment, levy or other processes. This,
however, does not apply to obligations of the members to the
System, or to the employer, or when the benefits are assigned
by the member with the authority of the System (Sec. 33, PD
1146). So even under the GSIS law, it establishes a protection
of the benefits not only from judicial recovery, but even from
administrative claimants.
Notes prepared by: Anthony Balagot, Khalil Elbanbuena and Jazzie Sarona
-case digest contributors as indicated-
2

Set 2 of 2: Public Officers & Public Corporations (4 th Year Lectures w/ Case Digests) 2008 – Lectures of Atty. Elman
So what about the COA disallowance? The same rule
applies. Such benefits cannot be withheld due to such COA
disallowance.