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.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 22 pages?
- Summer '19
- Dean Kent Evangelista