FACTS:

Lydia Chua, the petitioner, applied for benefits under Republic Act No. 6683, which covers appointive officials and employees of the National Government, government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and personnel of local government units. She believed she qualified for the benefits and filed an application with the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), but it was denied. The Civil Service Commission also denied her appeal, stating that she, as a contractual employee, was not entitled to the benefits. Dissatisfied, Chua filed a special civil action for certiorari arguing that she is entitled to the benefits.

Isagani Flores, the petitioner in another case, was employed by the Office of the Ombudsman as a Special Prosecutor on a contractual basis. His employment contract stated that he would provide special or technical skills not available within the agency for a duration not exceeding one year. After completing a preliminary investigation, Flores recommended filing an information in court, but his superiors disagreed and directed him to desist. Flores filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), but it was dismissed on the grounds that his contract had expired. Flores then appealed to the Supreme Court (SC).

ISSUES:

1. What is the employment status of the petitioner?

2. Can the petitioner's service be considered creditable for retirement purposes?

3. What are the substantial differences between casual, emergency, seasonal, project, co-terminous, or contractual personnel?

4. Whether co-terminous employees are entitled to the benefits under the Early Retirement Law.

5. Whether the denial of benefits to co-terminous employees violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

6. Whether co-terminous or project personnel should be included in the coverage of the Early Retirement or Voluntary Separation Law

RULING:

1. The petitioner's employment status is co-terminous with the NIA project, which is contractual in nature.

2. The petitioner's service can be considered creditable for retirement purposes subject to certain conditions.

3. The substantial differences between casual, emergency, seasonal, project, co-terminous, or contractual personnel lie in the basis of entrance into the service, tenure, and the nature of work they perform.

4. Co-terminous employees are entitled to the benefits under the Early Retirement Law. The law expressly extends its benefits for early retirement to regular, temporary, casual, and emergency employees. Since co-terminous employees are non-career civil servants, like casual and emergency employees, there is no solid reason why they should be excluded from these benefits.

5. The denial of benefits to co-terminous employees violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically situated and does not bar reasonable classification of the subject of legislation. In this case, co-terminous employees are similarly situated to those covered by the Early Retirement Law. To deny them the benefits of the law would be a violation of the equal protection clause.

6. The Court believes that co-terminous or project personnel who have rendered years of continuous service should be included in the coverage of the Early Retirement Law, as long as they file their application prior to the expiration of their term and comply with Civil Service Commission (CSC) regulations. The denial by the respondents of the petitioner's application for early retirement benefits under the law is deemed unreasonable, unjustified, and oppressive. The Court grants the petition and remands the case to the CSC for a favorable disposition of the petitioner's application for early retirement benefits.

PRINCIPLES:

• Non-career service is characterized by entrance on bases other than the usual tests of merit and fitness and tenure that is limited to a specified period or subject to the pleasure of the appointing authority.

• Casual employees are those whose employment is occasional, unpredictable, sporadic, and brief in nature.

• Co-terminous status may be issued to employees whose entrance in the service is characterized by confidentiality by the appointing authority, subject to his pleasure, or co-existent with his tenure.

• Co-terminous employees may be classified based on their appointment being co-existent with the duration of a particular project, the tenure of the appointing authority, or the incumbent.

• Co-terminous employees are non-career civil servants.

• The equal protection clause guarantees that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.

• The maxim of expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply in this case.

• The necessary implication doctrine holds that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as what is expressed.

• Every statute is understood to contain all provisions necessary to effectuate its object and purpose.

• The inclusion of co-terminous or project personnel in the coverage of the Early Retirement or Voluntary Separation Law does not defeat the objective of trimming the bureaucracy. Co-terminous personnel should be considered as having their employment term expired upon termination of the project, making them eligible for early retirement benefits.

• The equal protection clause of the Constitution is violated when casual personnel, who are not even in the plantilla, are entitled to early retirement benefits while co-terminous personnel are not.

• Co-terminous personnel who have rendered years of continuous service should be included in the coverage of the Early Retirement Law, as long as they file their application prior to the expiration of their term and comply with CSC regulations.

• Denying the petitioner's application for early retirement benefits under the law is deemed unreasonable, unjustified, and oppressive. The petitioner is entitled to the benefits as she filed the application within a reasonable period and served the government for almost fifteen years in successive governmental projects.