VOL.

206, FEBRUARY 7, 1992 65

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

*
G.R. No. 88979. February 7, 1992.

LYDIA O. CHUA, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL IRRIGATION
ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT, respondents.

Political Law; Constitutional Law; No person shall be

deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.—
The case of Fegurin, et al. v. NLRC, et al., comes to mind where,
workers belonging to a work pool, hired and re-hired continuously
from one project to another were considered non-project-regular
and permanent employees. Petitioner Lydia Chua was hired and
re-hired in four (4) successive projects during a span of fifteen (15)
years. Although no proof of the existence of a work pool can be
assumed, her service record cannot be disregarded. Art. III, Sec. 1
of the 1987 Constitution guarantees: No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” “x x x In
Felwa vs. Salas, L-26511, Oct. 29, 1966, We ruled that the equal
protection clause applies only to persons or things identically
situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subject
of legislation, and a classification is reasonable where (1) it is
based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2)
these are germane to the purpose of the law; (3) the classification
applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions
which are substantially identical to those of the present; (4) the
classification applies only to those who belong to the same class.”
Applying the criteria set forth above, the Early Retirement Law
would violate the equal protection clause were we to sustain
respondents’ submission that the benefits of said law are to be
denied a class of government employees who are similarly
situated as those covered by said law. The maxim of Expressio
unius est exclusio alterius should not be the applicable maxim in
this case but the doctrine of necessary

_______________
 * EN BANC.

66

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

implication.

Statutory Construction; Doctrine of Necessary Implication;

What is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that
which is expressed.—“No statute can be enacted that can provide
all the details involved in its application. There is always an
omission that may not meet a particular situation. What is
thought, at the time of enactment, to be an all-embracing
legislation may be inadequate to provide for the unfolding events
of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is
enforced. One of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in
the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication. The doctrine
states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof
as that which is expressed. Every statute is understood, by
implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to
effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights,
powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all
such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and
logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. And every
statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include
all incidental power, right or privilege. This is so because the
greater includes the lesser, expressed in the maxim, in eo plus sit,
simper inest et minus.”

Political Law; Administrative Law; R.A. 6683; A co-terminous

employee is a non-career civil servant, like casual and emergency
employees, R.A. 6683 expressly extends its benefits for early
retirement to regular, temporary, casual and emergency employees.
—Co-terminous or project personnel, on the other hand, 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 as long as
they comply with CSC regulations promulgated for such purpose.
In this connection, Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1990
(5 March 1990) implementing Rep. Act No. 6850, requires, as a
condition to qualify for the grant of eligibility, an aggregate or
total of seven (7) years of government service which need not be
continuous, in the career or non-career service, whether
appointive, elective, casual, emergency, seasonal, contractual or
coterminous, including military and police service, as evaluated
and confirmed by the Civil Service Commission. A similar
regulation should be promulgated for the inclusion in Rep. Act No.
6683 of coterminous personnel who survive the test of time. This
would be in keeping with the coverage of “all social legislations
enacted to promote the physical and mental well-being of public
servants.” After all, coterminous personnel are also obligated to
the government for GSIS

67

VOL. 206, FEBRUARY 7, 1992 67

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

contributions, medicare and income tax payments, with the

general disadvantage of transience.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for certiorari to review the

decision of the Civil Service Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PADILLA, J.:

Pursuant to the policy of streamlining and trimming the

bureaucracy, Republic Act No. 6683 was approved on 2
December 1988 providing for benefits for early retirement
and voluntary separation from the government service as
well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization.
Deemed qualified to avail of its benefits are those
enumerated in Sec. 2 of the Act, as follows:

“Sec. 2. Coverage.—This Act shall cover all appointive officials

and employees of the National Government, including
governmentowned or controlled corporations with original
charters, as well as the personnel of all local government units.
The benefits authorized under this Act shall apply to all regular,
temporary, casual and emergency employees, regardless of age,
who have rendered at least a total of two (2) consecutive years of
government service as of the date of separation. Uniformed
personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines including those
of the PC-INP are excluded from the coverage of this Act.”

Petitioner Lydia Chua believing that she is qualified to

avail of the benefits of the program, filed an application on
30 January 1989 with respondent National Irrigation
Administration (NIA) which, however, denied the same;
instead, she was offered separation benefits equivalent to
one half (1/2) month basic pay for every year of service
commencing from 1980. A recourse by petitioner to 1
the
Civil Service Commission yielded negative result. Her
letter for reconsideration dated 25 April 1989 pleaded thus:

_______________

1 Letter of Commissioner Samilo Barlongay, 17 March 1989.

68

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

xxx
“With due respect, I think the interpretation of the Honorable
Commissioner of RA 6683 does not conform with the beneficent
purpose of the law. The law merely requires that a government
employee whether regular, temporary, emergency, or casual,
should have two consecutive years of government service in order
to be entitled to its benefits. I more than meet the requirement.
Persons who are not entitled are consultants, experts and
contractual(s). As to the budget needed, the law provides that the
Department of Budget and Management will shoulder a certain
portion of the benefits to be alloted to government corporations.
Moreover, personnel of these NIA special projects are entitled to
the regular benefits, such (sic) leaves, compulsory retirement and
the like. There is no reason why we should not be entitled to RA
6683. 2
x x x”

Denying the plea for reconsideration, the Civil Service

Commission (CSC) emphasized:

“x x x
We regret to inform you that your request cannot be granted.
The provision of Section 3.1 of Joint DBM-CSC Circular Letter
No. 89-1 does not only require an applicant to have two years of
satisfactory service on the date of separation/retirement but
further requires said applicant to be on a casual, emergency,
temporary or regular employment status as of December 2, 1988,
the date of enactment of R.A. 6683. The law does not contemplate
contractual employees in the coverage.
Inasmuch as your employment as of December 31, 1988, the
date of your separation from the service, is co-terminous with the
NIA project which is contractual in nature, this Commission shall
sustain its
3
original decision.
x x x”

In view of such denial, petitioner is before this Court by

way of a special civil action for certiorari, insisting that she
is entitled to the benefits granted under Republic Act No.
6683. Her arguments:

“It is submitted that R.A. 6683, as well as Section 3.1 of the Joint
DBM-CSC Circular Letter No. 89-1 requires an applicant to be on
a

_______________

2 Annex “E”, Rollo, p. 13.

3 Annex “F”, Rollo, p. 14.

69

VOL. 206, FEBRUARY 7, 1992 69

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

casual, emergency, temporary or regular employment status.

Likewise, the provisions of Section 23 (sic) of the Joint DBM-CSC
Circular Letter No. 88-1, implementing guidelines of R.A. No.
6683, provides that:

‘2.3 Excluded from the benefits under R.A. No. 6683 are the following:

a) Experts and Consultants hired by agencies for a limited period to

perform specific activities or services with a definite expected
output: i.e. membership in Task Force, Part-Time,
Consultant/Employees.
b) Uniformed personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
including those of the Philippine Constabulary and Integrated
National Police (PC-INP).
c) Appointive officials and employees who retire or elect to be
separated from the service for optional retirement with gratuity
under R.A. No. 1616, 4968 or with pension under R.A. No. 186, as
amended by R.A. No. 6680 or P.D. No. 1146, as amended, or vice-
versa.
d) Officials and employees who retired voluntarily prior to the
enactment of this law and have received the corresponding
benefits of that retirement/separation.
e) Officials and employees with pending cases punishable by
mandatory separation from the service under existing civil service
laws, rules and regulations; provided that if such officials and
employees apply in writing within the prescriptive period for the
 availment of the benefits herein authorized, shall be allowed only
if acquitted or cleared of all charges and their application
accepted and approved by the head of office concerned.’

Based on the above exclusions, herein petitioner does not

belong to any one of them. Ms. Chua is a full time employee of
NIA entitled to all the regular benefits provided for by the Civil
Service Commission. She held a permanent status as Personnel
Assistant A, a position which belongs to the Administrative
Service. x x x If casuals and emergency employees were given the
benefit of R.A. 6683 with more reason that this petitioner who
was holding a permanent status as Personnel Assistant A and has
rendered almost 15 years of faithful, continuous service in the
government should 4be similarly rewarded by the beneficient (sic)
purpose of the law.”

_______________

4 Rollo, pp. 24-25.

70

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

The NIA and the Civil Service Commission reiterate in

their comment petitioner’s exclusion from the benefits of
Republic Act No. 6683, because:

1. Petitioner’s employment is co-terminous with the

project per appointment papers kept by the
Administrative Service in the head office of NIA
(the service record was issued by the Watershed
Management and Erosion Control Project
(WMECP), Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija). The project,
funded by the World Bank, was completed as of 31
December 1988, after which petitioner’s position
became functus officio.
2. Petitioner is not a regular and career employee of
NIA—her position is not included in its regular
plantilla. She belongs to the non-career service (Sec.
6, P.D. No. 807) which is inherently short-lived,
temporary and transient; on the other hand,
retirement presupposes employment for a long
period. The most that a non-career personnel can
expect upon the expiration of his employment is
financial assistance. Petitioner is not even qualified
to retire under the GSIS law.
 3. Assuming arguendo that petitioner’s appointment
is permanent, security of tenure is available only
for the term of office (i.e. duration of project).
4. The objective of Republic Act No. 6683 is not really
to grant separation
5
or retirement benefits but
reorganization to streamline government functions.
The application of the law must be made consistent
with the purpose for which it was enacted. Thus, as
the expressed purpose of the law is to reorganize
the government, it will not have any application to
special projects such as the WMECP which exists
only for a short and definite period. This being the
nature of special projects, there is no necessity for
offering its personnel early retirement benefits just
to induce voluntary separation as a

_______________

5 AN ACT PROVIDING BENEFITS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT AND

VOLUNTARY SEPARATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE AS
WELL AS INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION OF CIVIL SERVICE
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO VARIOUS EXECUTIVE
ORDERS AUTHORIZING GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION AFTER
THE RATIFICATION OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

71

VOL. 206, FEBRUARY 7, 1992 71

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

step to reorganization. In fact, there is even no need

of reorganizing the WMECP
6
considering its short
and limited life-span.
5. The law applies only to employees of the national
government, government-owned or controlled
corporations with original charters and local
government units.

Due to the impossibility of reconciling the conflicting

interpretations of the parties, the Court is called upon to
define the different classes of employees in the public
sector (i.e. government civil servants).
Who are regular employees? The Labor Code in Art. 280
(P.D. No. 492, as amended) deems an employment regular
where the employee has been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer. No equivalent definition
can be found in P.D. No. 807 (promulgated on 6 October
1975, which superseded the Civil Service Act of 1965—R.A.
No. 2260) or in the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive
Order No. 292 promulgated on 25 July 1987). The Early
Retirement Law itself (Rep. Act No. 6683) merely includes
such class of employees (regular employees) in its coverage,
unmindful that no such specie is employed in the public
sector.
The appointment status of government employees in the
career service is classified as follows:

1. permanent—one issued to a person who has met

the requirements of the position to which
appointment is made, in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Service Act and the Rules
7
and Standards promulgated in pursuance thereof;
2. temporary—In the absence of appropriate eligibles
and it becomes necessary in the public interest to
fill a vacancy, a temporary appointment shall be
issued to a person who meets all the requirements
for the position to which he is being appointed
except the appropriate civil service eligibility:
Provided, That such temporary appointment shall
not exceed twelve months, but the appointee may
be replaced sooner if a qualified

_______________

6 See Joint DBM-CSC Circular Letter No. 88-1, 12 December 1988,

Rollo, p. 61.
7 Sec. 25, a and b, P.D. No. 807; see also CSC Memorandum Circular
No. 11, S. of 1991, 5 April 1991.

72

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

8
civil service eligible becomes available.

The Administrative Code of 1987 characterizes the Career

Service as:

“(1) Open Career positions for appointment to which

prior qualification in an appropriate examination is
required;
 (2) Closed Career positions which are scientific, or
highly technical in nature; these include the faculty
and academic staff of state colleges and
universities, and scientific and technical positions
in scientific or research institutions which shall
establish and maintain their own merit systems;
(3) Positions in the Career Executive Service; namely,
Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau
Director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional
Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of
Department Service and other officers of equivalent
rank as may be identified by the Career Executive
Service Board, all of whom are appointed by the
President.
(4) Career Officers, other than those in the Career
Executive Service, who are appointed by the
President, such as the Foreign Service Officers in
the Department of Foreign Affairs;
(5) Commission officers and enlisted men of the Armed
Forces which shall maintain a separate merit
system;
(6) Personnel of government-owned or controlled
corporations, whether performing governmental or
proprietary functions, who do not fall under the
non-career service; and
(7) Permanent laborers,
9
whether skilled, semi-skilled,
or unskilled.”

The Non-Career Service, on the other hand, is characterized

by:

“x x x (1) entrance on bases other than those of the usual tests of

merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and (2) tenure
which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is
coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his
pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project
for which purpose

_______________

8 Ibid., also Perez v. City of San Carlos, G.R. No. L-48196-R, 11 July 1978; Ata
v. Namocatcat, G.R. No. L-35703, 30 October 1972, 47 SCRA 320.
9 Executive Order No. 292, Section 7, 83 O.G. No. 39, 75 (September 1987).

73

VOL. 206, FEBRUARY 7, 1992 73

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission
employment was made.”
Included in the non-career service are:

1. elective officials and their personal or confidential staff;

2. secretaries and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold
their positions at the pleasure of the President and their
personal confidential staff(s);
3. Chairman and Members of Commissions and boards with
fixed terms of office and their personal or confidential
staff;
4. contractual personnel or those whose employment in the
government is in accordance with a special contract to
undertake a specific work or job requiring special or
technical skills not available in the employing agency, to
be accomplished within a specific period, which in no case
shall exceed one year and performs or accomplishes the
specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a
minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring
agency.
10
5. emergency and seasonal personnel.”

There is another type of non-career employee:

“Casual—where and when employment is not permanent but

occasional, unpredictable, sporadic and brief in nature (Caro v.
Rilloroza, 102 Phil. 70; Manuel v. P.P. Gocheco Lumber Co., 96
Phil. 945)”

Consider petitioner’s record of service:

“Service with the government commenced on 2 December 1974

designated as a laborer holding emergency status 11
with the NIA—
Upper Pampanga River Project, R & R Division. From 24 March
1975 to 31 August 1975, she was a research aide with temporary
status on the same project. On 1 September 1975 to 31 December
1976, she was with the NIA-FES III, R & R Division, then on 1
January 1977 to 31 May 1980, she was with NIA-UPR IIS (Upper
Pampanga River Integrated Irrigation systems) DRD. On 1 June
1980, she went to NIA-W.M.E.C.P. (Watershed Management &
Erosion Control Project) retaining the status of temporary
employee. While with this project, her designation was changed to
personnel assistant on 5 November 1981, starting 9 July 1982, the
status became permanent until the completion
12
of the project on 31
December 1988. The appointment paper

________________

10 Ibid, Section 9, p. 77.

 11 Per Service Record, Rollo, p. 7.
12 Rollo, p. 70.

74

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

attached to the OSG’s comment lists her status as co-terminus

with the Project.”

The employment status of personnel hired under foreign—

assisted projects is considered co-terminous, that is, they
are considered employees for the duration of the project or
until the completion or cessation of said project (CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 39, S. 1990, 27 June 1990).
Republic Act No. 6683 seeks to cover and benefits
regular, temporary, casual and emergency employees who
have rendered at least a total of two (2) consecutive years of
government service. Resolution No. 87-104 of the CSC, 21
April 1987, provides:

“WHEREAS, pursuant to Executive Order No. 966 dated June 22,

1984, the Civil Service Commission is charged with the function
of determining creditable services for retiring officers and
employees of the national government;
WHEREAS, Section 4 (b) of the same Executive Order No. 966
provides that all previous services by an officer/employee
pursuant to a duly approved appointment to a position in the
Civil Service are considered creditable services, while Section 6
(a) thereof states that services rendered on contractual, emergency
or casual status are non-creditable services;
WHEREAS, there is a need to clarify the aforesaid provisions
inasmuch as some contractual, emergency or casual employment
are covered by contracts or appointments duly approved by the
Commission.
NOW, therefore, the Commission resolved that services rendered
on contractual, emergency or casual status, irrespective of the
mode or manner of payment therefor shall be considered as
creditable for retirement purposes subject to the following
conditions: (Italics supplied)

‘1. These services are supported by approved appointments,

official records and/or other competent evidence.
Parties/agencies concerned shall submit the necessary
proof of said services;
2. Said services are on full time basis and rendered prior to
June 22, 1984, the effectivity date of Executive Order No.
966; and
 3. The services for the three (3) years period prior to
retirement are continuous and fulfill the service
requirement for retirement.’ ”

75

VOL. 206, FEBRUARY 7, 1992 75

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

What substantial differences exist, if any, between casual,

emergency, seasonal, project, co-terminous or contractual
personnel? All are tenurial employees with no fixed term,
non-career,
13
and temporary. The 12 May 1989 CSC letter of
denial characterized herein petitioner’s employment as co-
terminous with the NIA project which in turn was
contractual in nature. The OSG says petitioner’s status is
co-terminous with the Project. CSC Memorandum Circular
No. 11, series of 1991 (5 April 1991) characterizes the
status of a co-terminous employee—

“(3) Co-terminous status shall be issued to a person whose

entrance in the service is characterized by confidentiality by the
appointing authority or that which is subject to his pleasure or
coexistent with his tenure.
The foregoing status (co-terminous) may be further classified
into the following:

‘a) co-terminous with the project—When the appointment is

co-existent with the duration of a particular project for
which purpose employment was made or subject to the
availability of funds for the same;
b) co-terminous with the appointing authority—when
appointment is co-existent with the tenure of the
appointing authority.
c) co-terminous with the incumbent—when appointment is
co-existent with the appointee, in that after the
resignation, separation or termination of the services of
the incumbent the position shall be deemed automatically
abolished; and
d) co-terminous with a specific period, e.g., ‘co-terminous for
a period of 3 years’—the appointment is for a specific
period and upon expiration thereof, the position is deemed
abolished.’

It is stressed, however, that in the last two classification (c)

and
(d), what is termed co-terminous is the position, and not the
appointee-employee. Further, in (c) the security of tenure of the
appointee is guaranteed during his incumbency; in (d) the
security of tenure is limited to a specific period.”

A co-terminous employee is a non-career civil servant, like

casual and emergency employees. We see no solid reason
why

_______________

13 Page 3, this decision.

76

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

the latter are extended benefits under the Early

Retirement Law but the former are not. It will be noted
that Rep. Act No. 6683 expressly extends its benefits for
early retirement to regular, temporary, casual and
emergency employees. But specifically excluded from the
benefits are uniformed personnel of the AFP including
those of the PC-INP. It can be argued that, expressio unius
est exclusio alterius. The legislature would not have made a
specific enumeration in a statute had not the intention
been to restrict its meaning and confine 14
its terms and
benefits to those expressly mentioned or casus omissus
pro omisso habendus est—A person, object or thing omitted
from an enumeration
15
must be held to have been omitted
intentionally. Yet adherence to these legal maxims can
result in incongruities and in a violation of the equal
protection clause of the Constitution. 16
The case of Fegurin, et al. v. NLRC, et al., comes to
mind where, workers belonging to a work pool, hired and
re-hired continuously from one project to another were
considered non-project-regular and permanent employees.
Petitioner Lydia Chua was hired and re-hired in four (4)
successive projects during a span of fifteen (15) years.
Although no proof of the existence of a work pool can be
assumed, her service record cannot be disregarded.
Art. III, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees: “No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.”

“x x x In Felwa vs. Salas, L-26511, Oct. 29, 1966, We ruled that

the equal protection clause applies only to persons or things
identically situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of
the subject of legislation, and a classification is reasonable where
(1) it is based on substantial distinctions which make real
differences; (2) these are germane to the purpose of the law; (3)
the classification applies not only to present conditions but also to
future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the
present; (4) the

_______________

14 See Agpalo, Ruben. Statutory Construction, 1986 ed., p. 161.

15 People v. Manantan, 115 Phil. 664.
16 G.R. No. 54083, 28 February 1983, 120 SCRA 910.

77

VOL. 206, FEBRUARY 7, 1992 77

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission
17
classification applies only to those who belong to the same class.”

Applying the criteria set forth above, the Early Retirement

Law would violate the equal protection clause were we to
sustain respondents’ submission that the benefits of said
law are to be denied a class of government employees who
are similarly situated as those covered by said law. The
maxim of Expressio unius est exclusio alterius should not be
the applicable maxim in this case but the doctrine of
necessary implication, which holds that:

“No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details
involved in its application. There is always an omission that may
not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the time of
enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may be inadequate
to provide for the unfolding events of the future. So-called gaps in
the law develop as the law is enforced. One of the rules of
statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of
necessary implication. The doctrine states that what is implied in
a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed.
Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such
provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and
purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or
jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and
subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred
from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. And every statutory grant of
power, right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power,
right or privilege. This is so because the greater includes the
lesser, expressed
18
in the maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et
minus.”
During the sponsorship speech of Congressman Dragon (re:
Early Retirement Law), in response to Congressman
Dimaporo’s interpellation on coverage of state university
employees who are

_______________

17 Ormoc Sugar Co. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, L-23794, 17 February

1968.
18 Statutory Construction by Ruben E. Agpalo, 1986 ed., p. 118-119
citing In re Dick, 38 Phil. 41 (1918); City of Manila v. Gomez, G.R. No. L-
37251, August 31, 1981, 107 SCRA 98; Escribano v. Ovila, G.R. No. L-
30375, September 12, 1978, 85 SCRA 245 (1978), also Go Chico v.
Martinez, 45 Phil. 256 (1923); Gatchalian v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
32560, October 22, 1970, 35 SCRA 435 (1970); People v. Uy Jui Pio, 102
Phil. 679 (1957) and People v. Aquino, 83 Phil. 614 (1949).

78

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

extended appointments 19
for one (1) year, renewable for two
(2) or three (3) years, he explained:

This Bill covers only those who would like to go on early

retirement and voluntary separation. It is irrespective of the
actual status or nature of the appointment one received, but if he
opts to retire under this, then he is covered.”

It will be noted that, presently pending in Congress, is

House Bill No. 33399 (a proposal to extend the scope of the
Early Retirement Law). Its wording supports the
submission that Rep. Act No. 6683 indeed overlooked a
qualified group of civil servants, Sec. 3 of said House bill,
on coverage of early retirement, would provide:

“Sec. 3. Coverage.—It will cover all employees of the national

government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations, as well as the personnel of all local government
units. The benefits authorized under this Act shall apply to all
regular, temporary, casual, emergency and contractual employees,
regardless of age, who have rendered at least a total of two (2)
consecutive years government service as of the date of separation.
The term ‘contractual employees’ as used in this Act does not
include experts and consultants hired by agencies for a limited
period to perform specific activities or services with definite
expected output.
 “Uniformed personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
including those of the PC-INP are excluded from the coverage of
this Act.” (emphasis supplied)

The objective of the Early Retirement or Voluntary

Separation Law is to trim the bureaucracy, hence, vacated
positions are deemed abolished upon early/voluntary
retirement of their occupants. Will the inclusion of co-
terminous personnel (like the petitioner) defeat such
objective? In their case, upon termination of the project and
separation of the project personnel from the service, the
term of employment is considered expired, the office
functus officio. Casual, temporary and contractual
personnel serve for shorter periods, and yet, they only have
to establish two (2) years of continuous service to qualify.
This,

_______________

19 Deliberations House Bill No. 4942—8 March 1988, 6:30 p.m.

79

VOL. 206, FEBRUARY 7, 1992 79

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

incidentally, negates the OSG’s argument that co-

terminous or project employment is inherently short-lived,
temporary and transient, whereas, retirement presupposes
employment for a long period. Here, violation of the equal
protection clause of the Constitution becomes glaring
because casuals are not even in the plantilla, and yet, they
are entitled to the benefits of early retirement. How can the
objective of the Early Retirement Law of trimming the
bureaucracy be achieved by granting early retirement
benefits to a group of employees (casuals) without plantilla
positions? There would, in such a case, be no abolition of
permanent positions or streamlining of functions; it would
merely be a removal of excess personnel; but the positions
remain, and future appointments can be made thereto.
Co-terminous or project personnel, on the other hand,
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 as long as they comply with CSC
regulations promulgated for such purpose. In this
connection, Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series 20
of 1990 (5
March 1990) implementing Rep. Act No. 6850, requires, as
a condition to qualify for the grant of eligibility, an
aggregate or total of seven (7) years of government service
which need not be continuous, in the career or non-career
service, whether appointive, elective, casual, emergency,
seasonal, contractual or co-terminous, including military
and police service, as 21evaluated and confirmed by the Civil
Service Commission. A similar regulation should be
promulgated for the inclusion in Rep. Act No. 6683 of co-
terminous personnel who survive the test of time. This
would be in keeping with the coverage of “all social
legislations enacted to promote 22
the physical and mental
well-being of public servants.” After

_______________

20 An Act to Grant Civil Service Eligibility Under Certain Conditions to

Government Employees Under Provisional or Temporary Status Who
have rendered a Total of Seven (7) Years of Efficient Service and for other
Purposes.
21 Rule 1, Sec. 2(c) as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 25, series
of 1990, 21 May 1990.
22 See Joint CSC-DBM Circular No. 1, series of 1991, 27 June 1991.

80

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Chua vs. Civil Service Commission

all, co-terminous personnel are also obligated to the

government for GSIS contributions, medicare and income
tax payments, with the general disadvantage of transience.
In fine, the Court believes, and so holds, that the denial
by the respondents NIA and CSC of petitioner’s application
for early retirement benefits under Rep. Act No. 6683 is
unreasonable, unjustified, and oppressive, as petitioner
had filed an application for voluntary retirement within a
reasonable period and she is entitled to the benefits of said
law. While the application was filed after expiration of her
term, we can give allowance for the fact that she originally
filed the application on her own without the assistance of
counsel. In the interest of substantial justice, her
application must be granted; after all she served the
government not only for two (2) years—the minimum
requirement under the law but for almost fifteen (15) years
in four (4) successive governmental projects.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
Let this case be remanded to the CSC-NIA for a
favorable disposition of petitioner’s application for early
 retirement benefits under Rep. Act No. 6683, in accordance
with the pronouncements in this decision.
SO ORDERED.

          Narvasa (C.J.), Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras,

Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero and Nocon, JJ., concur.
       Gutierrez, Jr., J., I concur but only insofar as our
rulings are applied to R.A. 6683 applicants.

Petition granted.

Note.—Statutory exceptions are to be strictly but

reasonably construed. (Samson vs. Court of Appeals, 145
SCRA 654).

——o0o——

81

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.