Can the length of service of Judge Antonio S. Alano as a former Sangguniang Bayan member be credited in his favor in order to complete the 20 years of government service requirement for the purpose of availing the monthly lifetime pension under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910^[1]?

This administrative matter involves the entitlement of Judge Antonio S. Alano, former presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 35, to a lifetime pension under Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 910, as amended.

The facts are as follows:

On November 27, 2001, the Court En Banc approved petitioner's application for disability retirement under R.A. No. 910, to wit:

Acting on the Application for Disability Retirement filed by Judge Antonio S. Alano, RTC, Branch 35, General Santos City, under R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. 5095 and P.D. 1438, and it appearing that applicant is: (1) over 69 years old with more than 17 years of government service and (2) suffering from Cerebrovascular Accident, [recurrent infarct], left Middle Cerebral Artery in distribution; with Right-Sided Hemiparesis; Hypertensive Cardiovascular Disease; Diabetes Mellitus, Type II, which condition falls within the classification of a total permanent disability per Memorandum dated 24 September 2001 of the Medical Services of this Court, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the application effective 4 April 2001 x x x.

A copy of the Resolution was received by petitioner on December 21, 2001.^[2]  Claiming that the Court erroneously credited him with only 17 years of government service, which consists 11 years as a judge and six years as Provincial Board Member of Basilan, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration contending that if his four years of service as a Sangguniang Bayan member is added to his 17 years of government service, then he would have rendered more than 21 years of government service which would qualify him to avail the monthly lifetime pension under R.A. No. 910.  Attached to the Motion for Partial Reconsideration is petitioner's Service Record duly signed by Nonito T. Ramirez, Secretary to the Sanggunian.

In a minute resolution dated April 10, 2002, the Court denied the motion, stating thus:

The Court resolved, upon recommendation of Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock in his Memorandum dated 1 March 2002, to DENY the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the resolution of 27 November 2001, dated 1 January 2001 of former Judge Antonio S. Alano, RTC, Branch 35, General Santos City. Services rendered for the period 10 January 1976 to 31 January 1980 as Sangguniang Bayan Member cannot be accredited as government service for purposes of retirement.

On December 12, 2006, petitioner filed the instant petition reiterating his plea that his more than four years of government service as a Sangguniang Bayan member of the Municipality of Isabela, Basilan for the period January 10, 1976 to January 31, 1980 be credited in his favor and that based on the applicable last salary and other benefits he was receiving prior to his retirement, he be granted a monthly pension for the rest of his natural life to answer for his rehabilitation, medicines, doctor's bills, and expenses for his support.

Petitioner alleged that he has reached the age of 75 last June 13, 2006;   that since the approval of his retirement on April 4, 2001, a substantial portion, if not all, of his retirement benefits have been spent for his rehabilitation, medicines, medical care and maintenance; that if his request be granted, the proceeds of his monthly pension will be spent in meeting his rehabilitation, medicines, doctor's bills and expenses for his support.  He thus prayed for the Court to give due course to his petition and thereafter render a more humane and equitable judgment. Petitioner attached to his petition his Service Record duly signed by Otilla W. Ricablanca, Chief, Human Resource Management Office, Isabela, Basilan.

In a Resolution dated March 6, 2007, we required Judge Alano to submit additional proof that he served in the Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela.  In compliance, Judge Alano submitted a) a certified true copy of a certification issued by Francisco R. Pia, former Vice-Mayor of Isabela, certifying that he and Judge Alano served together as members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela in 1976-1980; and b) certified true copies of excerpts from minutes of the Sessions of the Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela from 1976 to 1979, which were attended and participated in by Judge Alano.

In a Memorandum dated March 19, 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the request of Judge Alano for accreditation of his services rendered as Sangguniang Bayan Member of Isabela, Basilan for four years and 21 days be granted; and that he be entitled to receive an additional 5-year lump sum gratuity having met the 20 years government service required to qualify and be entitled to the 10-year lump sum gratuity provided for Disability Retirement under R.A. No. 910, as amended.

However, the Court deferred action on the matter pending submission of additional proof that Judge Alano served in the Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela.  Thus, on June 19, 2007, the Court resolved to require the Office of the Court Administrator to secure proof from the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) of Judge Alano's appointment as Member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela, Basilan.

In a Certification dated July 24, 2007, the DILG stated that it has no available copies of documents^[3] to prove that former Judge Alano has been a Member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Isabela, Basilan.  However, it also stated that DILG only requires submission of said documents when the need arises and that the local government unit concerned could have kept on file said documents.

Consequently, we required the local government of Isabela, Basilan to issue a certification.   In a Certification dated January 10, 2007,^[4] Otilla W. Ricablanca, Human Resource Management Officer of Isabela, Basilan stated, thus:

CERTIFICATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that insofar as the records of the appointment of Atty. (now Judge) Antonio S. Alano, as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan, of the Municipality (now City) of Isabela, Basilan Province, for his term of office from January 10, 1976 to January 31, 1980, are no longer available, as the same were destroyed, when the water tank above the Archives room where the said records are located leaked, and water therefrom seeped through the ceiling into the public documents, papers and records located and stored inside the said room below, and destroyed the same, sometime in the early 1980's.

It is further certified that his Service Record as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality (now City) of Isabela, Basilan Province, and the various "Excerpts of from the Minutes of the Regular and Special Sessions of the Sangguniang Bayan" showing that he attended the said sessions and voted in the approval of the various Ordinances of the said legislative body during his term of office, are the only available records as of the present, the copies of which have already been furnished to Judge Antonio S. Alano.

x x x x

Records show that Judge Alano served as Sangguniang Bayan member of Isabela, Basilan from January 10, 1976 up to January 31, 1980, or for a period of 4 years and 21 days.  He was also elected as Provincial Board member of the same province from February 1, 1980 up to April 20, 1986, or for a period of 6 years, 2 months, and 19 days.  On January 1, 1990, he was appointed as presiding judge and he served as such up to April 4, 2001, or for a period of 11 years, 3 months, and 3 days.  Thus, he has rendered a total of 21 years, 6 months, and 13 days of government service.

Section 1 of R.A. No. 910, as amended, provides:

Section 1. When a justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, a judge of the Court of First Instance, Industrial Relations, Agrarian Relations, Tax Appeals, Juvenile and Domestic Relations, or a city or municipal judge who has rendered at least twenty 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 incapacity to discharge the duties of his office, he shall receive during the residue of his natural life, in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary which he was receiving at the time of his retirement or resignation. And when a justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, a judge of Court of First Instance, Industrial Relations, Agrarian Relations, Tax Appeals, Juvenile and Domestic Relations, or a city or municipal judge has attained the age of sixty years and has rendered at least twenty years service in the Government, the last five of which shall have been continuously rendered in the judiciary, he shall likewise be entitled to retire and receive during the residue of his natural life, also in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary which he was then receiving. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

It is clear from the foregoing that the 20 years service requirement for a retiree who has reached the age of 70 must be rendered "in the judiciary or in any branch of the government."  There is no distinction whether it was rendered in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch.  On the other hand, for a retiree who has reached the age of 60, it is required that the last 5 years of his 20 years of government service be continuously rendered in the judiciary.

In Re: Application for Retirement Under R.A. No. 910 of Associate Justice Ramon B. Britanico of the Intermediate Appellate Court,^[5] the Court enunciated in this wise:

As provided in Section 1, the justices or judges who may enjoy retirement benefits with lifetime annuity, should, as a condition sine qua non, have rendered "at least 20 years service in the judiciary or in any other branch of the Government, or both." They fall into three (3) categories:

1. Those who mandatorily retire at age 70 and had rendered at least 20 years service in the judiciary or any other branch of the Government or both;
   
   
2. Those who resign by reason of incapacity to discharge the duties of their office and had rendered at least 20 years service in the judiciary or in any other branch of the Government or both;
   
   
3. Those who voluntarily retire at age 60 after having rendered at least 20 years service in the Government, the last 5 years of which were continuously rendered in the judiciary.

It appears that Judge Alano was qualified to retire under the second category because he retired before reaching the age of 70 and after rendering more than 20 years of government service, the last five years of which was served in the judiciary.  However, he opted to retire under Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 910 by reason of a permanent disability which should have entitled him to receive a gratuity equivalent to 10 years' salary, but with no further annuity payable during the rest of his natural life.  We note, however, that upon his retirement on April 4, 2001, Judge Alano only received a lump sum payment equivalent to five years' salary.  Thus, pursuant to Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 910, Judge Alano should be granted an additional gratuity equivalent to 5 years' salary.

Ordinarily, since Judge Alano retired under Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 910, he will no longer be entitled to a monthly pension during the rest of his natural life. However, at the time Judge Alano retired on April 4, 2001, he was already qualified to retire under Sec. 1.  Thus, pursuant to our ruling in Re: Ruperto G. Martin,^[6] his having applied for disability retirement would not serve to deprive him of his monthly pension, assuming he is still alive beyond the period of 10 years after his retirement on April 4, 2001.

In the case of Re: Ruperto G. Martin, this Court granted Justice Martin's application for lifetime pension which was filed 11 years after his retirement. Justice Martin, like Judge Alano, retired by reason of permanent disability before reaching the age of 70 and after rendering over 20 years of service in the government, the last five of which had been continuously rendered in the judiciary.  Although Justice Martin already received the ten-year lump sum retirement gratuity under the second paragraph of Section 3, R.A. No. 910, as amended, the Court nevertheless granted his application for a monthly pension.  The Court ratiocinated in this wise:

It is indeed true that the purpose of the ten-year lump sum under Sec. 3 is to enable the retiree to meet the medical and hospital expenses for the treatment of his illness.  If at the time of retirement he was already entitled to retire under Section 1 of RA 910 and to receive his 5-year lump sum plus a lifetime pension after five years, his having applied for disability retirement under Section 3 of the law in order that he may receive the 10-year lump sum gratuity, should not result in the forfeiture of his right to a lifetime pension if he should still be alive after ten (10) years from his retirement. x x x

x x x x

Where a retiree by reason of permanent disability is entitled to and chooses retirement under Section 3 of RA 910 (ten-year lump sum without the lifetime annuity) although he would also have been entitled to retire under Section 1 (5-year lump sum with lifetime annuity) for having met the age and service requirements of the law, he is not deemed to have waived the lifetime annuity. In the event that he survives beyond the period of ten years after his retirement, his application for disability retirement under Section 3 may be converted into an application for voluntary retirement under Section 1 x x x.^[7] (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, we note that the instant petition was filed four years, eight months and 24 days after the Court denied petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration on April 10, 2002.  Notwithstanding the lapse of time, this Court has the obligation under R.A. No. 910 to grant petitioner his vested right to his retirement benefits. Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, petitioner has 10 years reckoned from the time the right of action accrues, to bring an action upon an obligation created by law.   Besides, the instant petition is not adversarial in nature; it is an administrative matter regarding a retiree's application for monthly pension.  Notably, in Re: Ruperto G. Martin, this Court granted Justice Martin's application for lifetime pension although it was filed 11 years after the approval of his application for disability retirement. Petitioner deserves no less.

It is axiomatic that retirement laws should be liberally construed and applied in favor of the persons intended to be benefited by them, and all doubts as to the intent of the law should be resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve its humanitarian purposes.^[8]  This Court is not insensitive to the plight of retired judges who, because of deteriorating health brought about by old age, need financial assistance and support in the twilight years of their life when they can no longer work with much vigor to earn a living. They deserve the full measure of the nation's gratitude for giving the best years of their life in the service of the government and the people.

WHEREFORE, Judge Antonio S. Alano's length of service as Sangguniang Bayan member is ordered CREDITED in his favor, thereby making his total length of government service equivalent to 21 years, 6 months and 13 days.  Considering that he received only a five years' salary lump sum payment when he retired on April 4, 2001, he is therefore GRANTED an additional five years' salary lump sum payment pursuant to Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 910.  In case Judge Alano survives beyond the period of 10 years after his retirement on April 4, 2001, he is likewise ENTITLED to receive a monthly pension for the rest of his natural life.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J.,  Quisumbing, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro, and Brion, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE RETIREMENT OF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS HEREOF BY THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, AND TO REPEAL COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-SIX.

^[2] Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration, p. 1.

^[3] Biodata or Personal Data Sheet, Appointment and Designation Papers, Updated Service Record, Oath of Office and Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth.

^[4] Should read as January 10, 2008.

^[5] A.M. No. 6484-Ret., May 15, 1989, 173 SCRA 421, 426.

^[6] A.M. No. 747-RET, July 13, 1990, 187 SCRA 477.

^[7] Id. at 482-483.

^[8] Ortiz v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-78957, June 28, 1988, 162 SCRA 812, 821-822.