Reblora vs. Armed Forces of the Philippines

Decisions of the Commission on Audit (COA) are reviewable by the Supreme Court not through an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, but through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64, which limits the scope of review to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, under Presidential Decree No. 1638, prior civilian government service is included in the computation of a military officer's "active service," which can trigger the conditions for compulsory retirement (attaining 56 years of age or 30 years of active service, whichever is later) at an earlier date.

The petitioner, a retired military officer, had rendered service as a civilian employee in the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) before joining the Philippine Navy. Upon his retirement, a dispute arose regarding the computation of his retirement benefits. The AFP calculated his benefits based only on his actual military service, excluding his prior civilian service. The petitioner contested this, believing his civilian service should be added to his military service for a higher benefit, leading him to seek redress from the Commission on Audit.

• Petitioner Roberto B. Reblora was born on May 22, 1944 and served as a civilian Barrio Development Worker at the DILG from January 6, 1969, to July 20, 1974.
• On May 21, 1973, he entered military service in the Philippine Navy and was called to active duty on August 26, 1974.
• On January 25, 1996, the AFP officially incorporated his DILG service into his length of active military service pursuant to P.D. No. 1638.
• On May 22, 2003, at the age of 59, the petitioner was compulsorily retired from the military, with the AFP calculating his total active service at thirty-four (34) years.
• However, in computing his retirement benefits, the AFP only considered his actual military service of thirty (30) years (from May 21, 1973 to May 22, 2003), excluding his civilian service.
• Petitioner disagreed, arguing that the exclusion of his four (4) years and five (5) months of civilian service resulted in an underpayment of P135,991.81.
• After failing to get a favorable opinion from the AFP Judge Advocate General, he sought assistance from the COA.
• The COA denied his claim, reasoning that while his civilian service should be included in his active service, this meant he had already fulfilled the conditions for compulsory retirement on May 22, 2000, when he turned 56 with a total of thirty-one (31) years of active service.
• The COA concluded that the petitioner was not underpaid but was actually overpaid by P77,807.16, as his benefits should have been based on the 2000 pay scale and retirement date, not the 2003 date.

• The computation of his retirement benefits should include both his thirty (30) years of actual military service and his four (4) years and five (5) months of prior civilian government service at the DILG.
• The AFP's computation, which excluded his civilian service, was erroneous and did not reflect his true length of service of thirty-four (34) years, resulting in an underpayment of his benefits.
• He is entitled to an additional retirement benefit amounting to P135,991.81.

• The AFP, in its initial computation, effectively argued that only actual military service should be the basis for retirement benefits, as it excluded the petitioner's civilian service from the calculation.
• The COA argued that while the petitioner's civilian service should be included as part of his "active service" under P.D. No. 1638, this inclusion triggered his compulsory retirement on May 22, 2000, upon reaching the age of 56 with more than 30 years of service.
• The COA contended that since the petitioner should have been retired in 2000, his continued service until 2003 was improper, and his benefits, when correctly computed based on the 2000 retirement date and pay scale, showed an overpayment rather than an underpayment.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the correct legal remedy to assail a decision of the Commission on Audit.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the petitioner's prior civilian government service should be included in the computation of his "active service" for the purpose of determining his compulsory retirement date and corresponding benefits under P.D. No. 1638.

• Procedural:
  • No, the petition was denied for being the wrong remedy. The Supreme Court ruled that judgments of the COA are reviewable only through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, not through an appeal under Rule 45. This procedural path limits the Court's inquiry to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, which the petitioner failed to allege.
• Substantive:
  • Yes, the petitioner's civilian service must be included, but this leads to an earlier retirement date. The Court affirmed the COA's interpretation of P.D. No. 1638. Section 3 of the decree defines "active service" to include prior civilian government service. Section 5(a) mandates compulsory retirement upon reaching 56 years of age or 30 years of active service, whichever is later. By including his civilian service, the petitioner had already accumulated 31 years of active service when he turned 56 on May 22, 2000. Therefore, his compulsory retirement date should have been May 22, 2000. The AFP erred in allowing him to serve until 2003. Consequently, the COA correctly determined that he was not underpaid but was overpaid, and its decision was rendered in accord with the law.

• Proper Remedy for Review of COA Decisions — Decisions, orders, or resolutions of the Commission on Audit may be brought to the Supreme Court only through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64, not an ordinary appeal under Rule 45. The Court applied this doctrine to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds, emphasizing that its review is limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not mere errors of judgment in the COA's application of law.
• Compulsory Retirement under P.D. No. 1638 — Section 5(a) of this decree provides that a military officer shall be compulsorily retired upon attaining fifty-six (56) years of age or upon accumulation of thirty (30) years of satisfactory active service, whichever is later. The Court applied this rule by determining that the petitioner met these conditions on May 22, 2000, making that his mandatory retirement date by operation of law.
• Definition of "Active Service" under P.D. No. 1638 — Section 3 of this decree defines "active service" to include service rendered by a military person as a civilian official or employee in the Philippine government prior to retirement from the AFP. This doctrine was central to the case, as the Court used it to justify the inclusion of the petitioner's DILG service in his total years of service, which in turn triggered his earlier compulsory retirement.

• "It was not unnoticed by this Court that much of the instant controversy resulted from the inability of the AFP to observe the compulsory retirement scheme under PD No. 1638 by allowing petitioner to render service well beyond 22 May 2000. In hindsight, this case could have been avoided had the AFP just been more circumspect in applying the law as it was clearly written."

• Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution — Cited as the constitutional basis for Rule 64, providing that decisions of the COA may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Identified as the incorrect remedy availed by the petitioner for appealing a COA decision.
• Rule 64, Rules of Court — Stated as the proper mode of review for judgments of the COA.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Referenced in conjunction with Rule 64, establishing that the review is through a special civil action for certiorari based on grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction.
• Presidential Decree No. 1638, as amended by P.D. No. 1650 — The primary law governing the retirement and separation of military personnel, which was the subject of the Court's interpretation.
• Section 3, P.D. No. 1638 — Applied to define "active service" to include the petitioner's prior civilian service at the DILG.
• Section 5(a), P.D. No. 1638 — Applied to determine the petitioner's compulsory retirement date based on his age and total active service.
• Section 17, P.D. No. 1638 — The provision under which the petitioner claimed his retirement benefits, which details the options and computation for such benefits.