Legaspi vs. Executive Secretary

A government employee who receives retirement gratuity under the GSIS Act (Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended) cannot also receive gratuity under Section 169 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, for the same services, the phrase "in addition to all benefits to which they are entitled under existing laws and regulations" referring only to non-retirement benefits such as the money value of accumulated sick and vacation leaves.

Petitioner Alfonso V. Legaspi was an employee of the Department of Agrarian Reforms, a government agency subject to the retirement system established under Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Act No. 1616, and administered by the Government Service Insurance System. Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, provided gratuity benefits for personnel of reorganized or abolished government agencies. The petitioner sought to avail himself of both retirement benefit schemes simultaneously.

Petitioner Alfonso V. Legaspi was an employee of the Department of Agrarian Reforms. On October 7, 1971, he sent a letter to respondent Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reforms, Honorable Conrado F. Estrella, expressing his desire to be laid off under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, on condition that he would also be paid the gratuity benefits to which he might be entitled under Republic Act No. 1616. On March 28, 1972, the respondent Secretary informed the petitioner that the Assistant Executive Secretary had denied his request to be laid off under the condition set forth in his letter.

On April 1, 1972, petitioner sent another letter to respondent Secretary advising of his decision to be laid off subject to reservations that his application for lay-off and all his acts relative thereto shall not be construed as a waiver of his right (a) to collect all benefits under Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by Republic Act 660 and Republic Act 1616, and to receive all payments of said benefits granted therein should the result of the administrative and legal remedies being sought by him be favorable to him; and (b) to collect the difference between the amount of what he shall have collected by virtue of this application and what he is entitled to under Republic Act 1616, if this is higher, should the result of the administrative and legal decisions be against him. The respondent Secretary approved petitioner's request, the lay-off to be effective April 30, 1972.

On May 8, 1972, the General Manager of the Government Service Insurance System approved petitioner's retirement (Retirement Gratuity No. 27511) under Section 12(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Act No. 1616, effective May 1, 1972. Accordingly, petitioner was paid the amount of P31,845.55 by the Government Service Insurance System. However, petitioner's claim for gratuity under Section 169 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, was denied, prompting the present petition.

Petitioner cited precedents wherein a government retiree was paid gratuity both under Republic Act 3844, as amended by Republic Act 6389, and Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by Republic Act 1616, including the cases of Mr. Julian de Vera, a former official of the defunct Land Tenure Administration, and Mr. Carmelo del Rosario, a former employee of the ACCFA, based on opinions of the Auditor General, the Government Corporate Counsel, and Assistant Executive Secretary Jose J. Leido, Jr. Petitioner also relied on opinions expressed by Senator Salvador Laurel, sponsor in the Senate of Republic Act 6389, and Congressman Emilio Espinosa, sponsor of the same Act in the House of Representatives, who opined that Section 36 of Republic Act 6389 intended to give gratuity in addition to all benefits legally due under existing laws and regulations to all employees who may not be absorbed or prefer to be laid off from the service.

• Entitlement to Double Gratuity: Petitioner argued that he is entitled to payment of gratuity under Section 36 of Republic Act No. 6389, pursuant to Section 169 of Republic Act No. 3844, in addition to the gratuity or all benefits to which he is entitled under Section 12(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Act No. 1616.
• Precedents of Prior Payments: Petitioner cited precedents wherein a government retiree was paid gratuity both under Republic Act 3844, as amended by Republic Act 6389, and Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by Republic Act 1616, pointing to the cases of Mr. Julian de Vera and Mr. Carmelo del Rosario, who were allegedly paid gratuity under both laws based on opinions of the Auditor General, the Government Corporate Counsel, and Assistant Executive Secretary Jose J. Leido, Jr.
• Legislative Intent: Petitioner relied on the opinions expressed by Senator Salvador Laurel and Congressman Emilio Espinosa, sponsors of Republic Act 6389, who opined that in enacting Section 36 of Republic Act 6389, Congress intended to give gratuity equivalent to one month salary for every year of service but in no case exceeding twenty-four months salary, in addition to all benefits legally due under existing laws and regulations, to all employees who may not be absorbed or prefer to be laid off from the service.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner contended that the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion and unlawfully neglected to perform an act which the law specifically enjoins them to do.

• Nature of Gratuity under RA 3844: Respondents maintained that the gratuity provided for under Section 169 of Republic Act 3844 is a retirement gratuity intended for those who desire to be laid off but would not be eligible to receive retirement benefits under the general laws.
• Legislative Policy Against Double Benefits: Respondents argued that as can be gleaned from the settled policy in the various retirement statutes, it is not the intention of the legislature to give double retirement benefits.
• Meaning of "In Addition To": Respondents argued that the phrase "in addition to all benefits to which they are entitled under existing laws and regulations" found in Section 169 of Republic Act 3844 does not refer to the retirement gratuity receivable under Commonwealth Act 186 but to other benefits, such as refund of personal contributions to the retirement fund with interest and the money value of accumulated vacation and sick leaves.
• No Express Legal Exception: Respondents argued that the provisions of Section 169 of Republic Act 3844 and Section 36 of Republic Act 6389 do not contain express legal exception to the general policy that pension and gratuity laws should be construed as to preclude any person from receiving double pension.

• Double Gratuity: Whether petitioner is entitled to receive gratuity under Section 169 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, in addition to the retirement gratuity he received under Section 12(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Act No. 1616.
• Interpretation of "In Addition To": Whether the phrase "in addition to all benefits to which they are entitled under existing laws and regulations" in Section 169 of Republic Act No. 3844 constitutes an express legal exception to the policy against double pension.
• Effect of Prior Administrative Opinions: Whether the opinions of the Auditor General, Government Corporate Counsel, and Assistant Executive Secretary allowing double gratuity in prior cases are binding judicial precedents upon the Court.

• Double Gratuity: No. Petitioner is not entitled to receive gratuity under Section 169 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, in addition to the retirement gratuity he received under Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, for the same services, consistent with the policy against double pension.
• Interpretation of "In Addition To": No. The phrase "in addition to all benefits to which they are entitled under existing laws and regulations" does not constitute an express legal exception to the policy against double pension; it refers to benefits other than retirement benefits, such as the money equivalent of accumulated sick and vacation leaves.
• Effect of Prior Administrative Opinions: No. The opinions of the Auditor General, Government Corporate Counsel, and Assistant Executive Secretary allowing double gratuity in prior cases are not judicial precedents valid and binding upon the Court, not having been passed upon by the Court in a proper case.

• Double Gratuity: The Court applied the settled rule that "in the absence of an express legal exception, pension and gratuity laws should be so construed as to preclude any person from receiving double pension." Citing Anciano vs. Otaboy, the Court noted that if the petitioner were allowed to receive full benefits under both laws, he would receive double pension for exactly the same services, which would run roughshod over the well-settled rule. The Court found nothing in Section 169 of Republic Act 3844, as amended, that would suggest that an employee who is laid off or prefers to be laid off can receive two pension benefits, one under its provisions and another pursuant to Commonwealth Act 186.

• Interpretation of "In Addition To": The Court held that the phrase "in addition to all benefits to which they are entitled under existing laws and regulations" does not allow double gratuities. The benefits alluded to in the inserted phrase refer to those "other than retirement benefits" to which the laid-off employee may be entitled, such as the money equivalent of accumulated sick and vacation leaves. This interpretation is more in line with the policy of the law embodied in Section 28(b) of Commonwealth Act 186 prohibiting an employer from paying double retirement benefits to an employee. Being the law governing the retirement of government employees, all other laws extending retirement benefits to government employees should, in case of ambiguity, be construed in relation thereto and in the light of its provisions. The Court applied the rule of statutory construction that when the legislature enacts a provision, it is understood that it is aware of previous statutes relating to the same subject matter, and that in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, the new provision should be deemed enacted pursuant to the legislative policy embodied in the prior statutes, which should all be construed together.

• Effect of Prior Administrative Opinions: The Court held that the precedents cited by petitioner are not judicial precedents valid and binding upon the Court. The opinions of the Auditor General, Government Corporate Counsel, and Assistant Executive Secretary have never been passed upon by the Court in a proper case. Citing Chavez vs. Mathay, the Court ruled that to the extent that said actions of the Auditor General are in conflict with the doctrine against double pension for exactly the same services in the absence of an express legal exemption, they have no valid nor binding effect. As stated in Taylor vs. Gimenez, "The error notwithstanding, the law must be enforced even if it prejudiced the defendant-appellee under the principle that mistakes of public officials cannot prejudice the State to the extent of violating an express provision and policy of the law." As to the opinions expressed by Senator Salvador Laurel and Congressman Emilio Espinosa, the Court stated that individual statements made by Senators on the floor of the Senate do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate; much less do they indicate the intent of the House of Representatives.

• Doctrine Against Double Pension — In the absence of an express legal exception, pension and gratuity laws should be so construed as to preclude any person from receiving double pension. The Court applied this doctrine to deny the petitioner's claim for gratuity under both Republic Act No. 3844 and Commonwealth Act No. 186 for the same services, finding no express legal exception in the phrase "in addition to all benefits to which they are entitled under existing laws and regulations."

• Statutory Construction — Construction in Relation to Prior Statutes — When the legislature enacts a provision, it is understood that it is aware of previous statutes relating to the same subject matter, and that in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, the new provision should be deemed enacted pursuant to the legislative policy embodied in the prior statutes, which should all be construed together. The Court applied this rule to construe Section 169 of Republic Act 3844 in relation to Section 28(b) of Commonwealth Act 186, which prohibits double retirement benefits.

• Non-Binding Effect of Administrative Opinions — Opinions of the Auditor General, Government Corporate Counsel, and Assistant Executive Secretary are not judicial precedents valid and binding upon the Court. To the extent that such administrative actions conflict with the doctrine against double pension, they have no valid nor binding effect, as mistakes of public officials cannot prejudice the State to the extent of violating an express provision and policy of the law.

• "Evidently, if he were allowed to receive full benefits under the Osmeña Retirement Law, in addition to the retirement insurance benefits he had already received under the GSIS Act, he would receive double pension for exactly the same services. This eventuality would run roughshod over the well-settled rule that in the absence of an express legal exception, pension and gratuity laws should be so constructed as to preclude any person from receiving double pension." — This passage from Anciano vs. Otaboy, quoted by the Court, articulates the controlling doctrine against double pension that governs the resolution of the case.

• "From the aforequoted phrase, We cannot get any hint that it meant to allow double gratuities. On the contrary, Section 169 of Republic Act 3844, seems to indicate that the benefits alluded to in the inserted phrase refer to those 'other than retirement benefits' to which the laid-off employee may be entitled, such as, the money equivalent of his accumulated sick and vacation leaves." — This passage states the Court's interpretation of the phrase "in addition to all benefits to which they are entitled under existing laws and regulations," holding that it does not allow double gratuities.

• "Being the law governing the retirement of government employees, all other laws extending retirement benefits to government employees should, in case of ambiguity, be construed in relation thereto and in the light of its provisions." — This passage establishes the interpretive principle that Commonwealth Act 186, as the general retirement law, governs the construction of other retirement benefit statutes.

• "Needless to state, to the extent that said action of the Auditor General are in conflict with the doctrine against double pension for exactly the same services in the absence of an express legal exemption, enunciated in the above-cited cases, they have no valid nor binding effect." — This passage from Chavez vs. Mathay, quoted by the Court, establishes that administrative opinions conflicting with the doctrine against double pension have no binding effect.

• Anciano vs. Otaboy, L-212667, February 28, 1969 — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that in the absence of an express legal exception, pension and gratuity laws should be so construed as to preclude any person from receiving double pension; the claimant who received retirement benefits under the GSIS Act was held to have foreclosed or waived his right to gratuity under the Osmeña Retirement Law.
• Chavez vs. Mathay, L-29311, February 27, 1971 — Followed for the ruling that administrative opinions of the Auditor General conflicting with the doctrine against double pension have no valid nor binding effect, not having been elevated to the Court in a proper case.
• Taylor vs. Gimenez, May 30, 1962 — Cited for the principle that mistakes of public officials cannot prejudice the State to the extent of violating an express provision and policy of the law.
• Borromeo vs. GSIS — Cited in Anciano vs. Otaboy for the doctrine against double pension, referencing 70 C.J.S., Sec. 5, p. 429.

• Section 169, Republic Act No. 3844 — Provides that permanent officials and employees of all existing government agencies which are abolished or reorganized under the Code, subject to Civil Service rules and regulations, shall be absorbed and shall not be divested of their positions except presidential appointees; those presidential appointees who cannot be absorbed and such officials and employees who prefer to be laid off shall be given gratuity equivalent to one month salary for every year of service but in no case more than twenty-four months salary, in addition to all benefits to which they are entitled under existing laws and regulations. The Court interpreted the phrase "in addition to all benefits" as referring to non-retirement benefits only.
• Section 36, Republic Act No. 6389 — Amended Section 169 of Republic Act No. 3844; the Court held that this provision does not contain an express legal exception to the policy against double pension.
• Section 12(c), Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by Republic Act No. 1616 — The provision under which petitioner's retirement gratuity was approved and paid by the Government Service Insurance System.
• Section 28(b), Commonwealth Act No. 186 — Prohibits an employer from paying double retirement benefits to an employee; provides that no gratuity or benefit shall be paid by an employer to an employee entitled to the retirement benefit of the Act. The Court construed Section 169 of Republic Act 3844 in relation to this provision.

Castro (Chairman), Teehankee, Makasiar, Esguerra, and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concurred.