Santiago Vs Commission On Audit - Report File

G.R. No. 92284. July 12, 1991.
TEODORO J. SANTIAGO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, and the GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondents.
“Involves the interpretation of Executive Order No. 966, Section 9”
Cruz, J:
FACTS:
Petitioner is Teodoro J. Santiago, employed as State Auditor IV in the Commission on Audit with a
monthly salary of Php7, 219. On 1988 he was assigned to the COA Auditing Unit at the Department of
Transportation and Communications and was detailed to the Manila International Airport Authority
(MIAA).
On July 1988, the board of directors of MIAA designated the petitioner was designated as Assistant
General Manager for Finance and Administration (by virtue of Resolution No. 88-70) with the following
conditions: (1) that he will retain his plantilla position in Coa; (2) that his compensation in MIAA shall be
the difference between the salary of AGM for Finance and Administration (MIAA) (amounting to
Php13,068) and that of State Auditor IV (COA) (which is (Php7,219); and (3) that his retirement benefits
shall be chargeable against COA. The resolution was duly coordinated to the COA with a request for
petitioner’s indefinite detail to the MIAA. The same was confirmed and approved by Chairman Eufemio
C. Domingo in his reply dated July 14, 1988.
On August 16, 1988, petitioner was formally designated as Acting Assistant General Manager for Finance
and Administration by then MIAA Secretary Reinerio Reyes.
Petitioner served in this capacity until December 5, 1988 and was compensated in the amount of
Php13,068 (consists of the differential salary of Php5,849 plus his salary of Php7,219). He was then
transferred to Presidential Management Staff under COA Office Order No. 88-11448 dated December 6,
1988.
And on March 1, 1989 petitioner retired after working 44 years in the government. In computing his
retirement benefits, Government Service Insurance System used as basis the amount of Php13,068,
considering this is the highest basic salary rate petitioner has received in the course of his employment
pursuant to Executive Order No. 966, Sec. 9 which states that,
Sec. 9. Highest Basic Salary Rate.—The compensation of salary or pay which may be
used in computing the retirement benefits shall be limited to the highest salary rate
actually received by an official/ employee as fixed by law and/or indicated in his duly
approved appointment.
COA disagrees and only paid petitioner the retirement benefit based on his monthly salary as State
Auditor IV which is Php7,219. Petitioner’s request for recomputation which was denied on December 08,
1989, hence, petitioner seeks the reversal of the Decision of COA on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion.
Solicitor General argues that the additional compensation received by the petitioner was merely an
honorarium and not a salary. As a mere honorarium, it would not fall under the provision of Section 9
and so should not be added to his salary in computing his retirement benefits. They further argued that,
the petitioner cannot invoke Section 9 because he was not appointed to the second position in MIAA but
only designated thereto.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Commission on Audit’s interpretation of Executive Order No. 966, Section 9 is
correct.
RULING:
NO, the Commission on Audit is in correct on its interpretation.
Hence the Court held that this is the more reasonable interpretation, especially considering that the
provision includes in the highest salary rate compensation for substitutionary services or in an acting
capacity. This need not always be conferred by a permanent appointment. A contrary reading would, in
their view, militate against the letter of the law, not to mention its spirit as it perceive. That spirit seeks
to extend the maximum benefits to the retiree as an additional if belated recognition of his many years
of loyal and efficient service in the government.
Binamira Vs. Garrucho the Court discussed that there is an accepted legal distinction between
appointment and designation. While appointment is the selection by the proper authority of an
individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office, designation, on the other hand, connotes
merely the imposition of additional duties, usually by law, upon a person already in the public service by
virtue of an earlier appointment (or election).
In this case, the Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner that even thought there is an accepted legal
distinction between appointment and designation, the law being invoked is Sec. 9, of E.O. 966, wherein
the term appointment was used in a general sense to include the term designation.
For the Court, Section 9 clearly covers the petitioner, who was designated as Acting Assistant General
Manager. The position was then vacant and could be filled either by permanent appointment or by
temporary designation. It cannot be said that the second position was only an extension of the
petitioner’s office as State Auditor IV in the Commission on Audit as otherwise there would have been
no need for his designation thereto. The second office was distinct and separate from his position in
Commission on Audit. And for the additional services he rendered for the MIAA, he was entitled to
additional compensation which, following the letter and spirit of Section 9, should be included in his
highest basic salary rate.
Further, the Court has held that Retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree
because their intention is to provide for his sustenance, and hopefully even comfort, when he no longer
has the stamina to continue earning his livelihood. After devoting the best years of his life to the public
service, he deserves the appreciation of a grateful government as best concretely expressed in a
generous retirement gratuity commensurate with the value and length of his services. That generosity is
the least he should expect now that his work is done and his youth is gone. Even as he feels the
weariness in his bones and glimpses the approach of the lengthening shadows, he should be able to
luxuriate in the thought that he did his task well, and was rewarded for it.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged resolution is SET ASIDE and judgment is hereby
rendered DIRECTING the computation of the petitioners retirement benefits on the basis of his Highest
Basic Salary Rate of P13,068.00. It is so ordered.
Retirement laws are construed liberally to enlarge the letter of a statute to accomplish its intended
purpose and carry out intent which is to provide sustenance and comfort to those people who devotes
his life to the public service.

Santiago Vs Commission On Audit - Report File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago Vs Commission On Audit - Report File

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago Vs Commission On Audit - Report File

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 92284. July 12, 1991.

“Involves the interpretation of Executive Order No. 966, Section 9”

NO, the Commission on Audit is in correct on its interpretation.

You might also like