7/22/2019 Cena vs Csc 211 Scra 179

1/6

G.R. No. 97419 July 3, 1992

GAUDENCIO T. CENA, petitioner,

vs.THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, a! THE HON. "ATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, # $%& 'a(a'#)y a*

C$a#&+a o )$% C#-#l S%&-#'% Co++#**#o, respondents.

MEDIALDEA, J.:

May a government employee who has reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years, but who hasrendered 11 years, 9 months and 6 days of government service, be allowed to continue in the service to

complete the15-year service requirement to enable him to retire with the benefits of an

old-age pension under ection 11 par. !b" of the #evised $overnment ervice %nsurance &ct of 19''( )hisis the issue raised before this *ourt by petitioner $audencio ). *ena, a #egistrar of the #egister of +eeds

of Malabon, Metro Manila.

)he facts are not disputed.

etitioner $audencio ). *ena entered the government service on ovember 16, 19' as /egal 0fficer %% ofthe /aw +epartment of *aloocan *ity where he stayed for seven !'" years until his transfer on ovember

16, 196 to the 0ffice of the *ongressman of the irst +istrict of *aloocan *ity where he wor2ed for onlythree !3" months, or until ebruary 15, 19', as upervising taff 0fficer.

0n 4uly 16, 19', he was appointed as #egistrar of the #egister of +eeds of Malabon, Metro Manila, theposition he held at the time he reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years on 4anuary , 1991

y then, he would have rendered a total government service of 11 years, 9 months and 6 days. eforereaching his 65th birthday, he requested the ecretary of 4ustice, through &dministrator )eodoro $.

onifacio of the /and #egistration &uthority !/#&", that he be allowed to e7tend his service to completethe 15-year service requirement to enable him to retire with full benefits of old-age pension under ection

11, par. !b" of .+. 1186.

)he /#& &dministrator, for his part, sought a ruling from the *ivil ervice *ommission whether or not to

allow the e7tension of service of petitioner *ena as he is covered by *ivil ervice Memorandum o. ',series 199. %n his nd %ndorsement dated &ugust 6, 199, the /#& &dministrator observed that if

petitioner:s service as of 4anuary , 1991 of 1 years, 6 months and 6 days !should be 11 years, 9months and 6 days" would be e7tended to 15 years, he would have to retire on &pril 15, 1998 at the age

of 6 years.

0n 4uly 31, 199, the *ivil ervice *ommission denied petitioner *ena:s request for e7tension of service inits ** #esolution o. 9-61, declaring therein, that Mr. *ena shall be considered retired from the

service on 4anuary , 1991, the date when he shall reach the compulsory retirement age ofsi7ty-five !65" years, unless his retention for another year is sought by the head of office under *ivil

ervice Memorandum *ircular o. ', s. 199.

etitioner *ena filed a motion for reconsideration. 0n 0ctober 1', 199, the *ivil ervice *ommission setaside its ** #esolution o. 9-61 and allowed $audencio *ena a one-year e7tension of his service from

4anuary , 1991 to 4anuary , 199, citing ** Memorandum *ircular o. ', series of 199, thepertinent of which reads;

1. &ny request for the e7tension of service of compulsory retirees to complete the fifteen!15" years service requirement for retirement shall be allowed only to permanent

appointees in the career service who are regular members of the $overnment ervice%nsurance ystem !$%", and shall be granted for a period not exceeding one (1) year.

0n 4anuary , 1991, petitioner:s second motion for reconsideration was denied in its ** #esolution o.

91-11.

7/22/2019 Cena vs Csc 211 Scra 179

2/6

7/22/2019 Cena vs Csc 211 Scra 179

3/6

ec. 11. Conditions for Old-Age Pension. D !a" 0ld-age pension shall be paid to a memberwho;

777 777 777

!b" Anless the service is e7tended by appropriate authorities, retirement shall be

compulsory for an employee of si7ty-five years of age with at least fifteen years of service;

rovided, )hat if he has less than fifteen years of service, he shall be allowed to continue inthe service to complete the fifteen years. !@mphasis supplied"

eing remedial in character, a statute creating a pension or establishing retirement plan should be

liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited thereby. )he liberalapproach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes of the law in order that the efficiency, security and

well-being of government employees may be enhanced !autista vs. &uditor $eneral, 18 hil 8E 0rtiBvs. *ommission on @lections, $.#. o. /-'95', 4une , 19, 16 *#& 1".

)he *ourt stated in &bad antos vs. &uditor $eneral, '9 hil. 1'6, that a pension parta2es of the natureof =retained wages= of the retiree for a double purpose; !1" to entice competent men and women to enter

the government service, and !" permit them to retire from the service with relative security, not only forthose who have retained their vigor, but more so for those who have been incapacitated by illness or

accident.

Ce have applied the liberal approach in interpreting statutes creating pension or establishing retirement

plans in cases involving officials of the 4udiciary who lac2ed the age and service requirement for

retirement. Ce see no cogent reason to rule otherwise in the case of ordinary employees of the @7ecutiveranch, as in the case of petitioner *ena, who has reached 65 but opted to avail of the statutory privilege

under ection 11 par. !b" of .+. 1186 to continue in the service to complete the 15-year service

requirement in order to avail of old-age pension.

%n #e; &pplication for $ratuity enefits of &ssociate 4ustice @fren %. lana, &dm. Matter o. 586, @n anc

#esolution, March 8, 19, the *ourt, applying the liberal approach, ruled that 4ustice lana, who at thetime of his courtesy resignation on March 5, 196 lac2ed a few months to meet the age requirement for

retirement under the law, is entitled to full retirement benefits under #.&. 91 because his accrued leave

credits would have entitled him to go on leave until beyond the age requirement for retirement.

)he above ruling of the *ourt was reiterated in #e; &pplication for #etirement under #ep. &ct o. 91 of&ssociate 4ustice #amon . ritanico of the %ntermediate &ppellate *ourt, &dm. Matter o. 688 D #et.,

May 15, 199. y liberally interpreting ection 3 of #.&. 91, as amended, in favor of the personsintended to be benefited by them, the *ourt also allowed the conversion of the application for disability

retirement of 4ustice #uperto Martin under said ection 3 of #.&. 91, as amended !1-year lump sumwithout the lifetime annuity" into an application for voluntary retirement under ection 1

!5-year lump sum with lifetime annuity" eleven years after his disability retirement was approved on4anuary 1, 19' !%n #e; &pplication for /ife ension under #ep. &ct 91. #uperto $. Martin, applicant,

1' *#& 8''". )he ten-year lump sum which he had received was considered by the *ourt as payment

under ection 1 of the five-year lump sum, to which he was entitled, and of his monthly pensions for thene7t five years.

ustifiable reason in not allowing ordinary employees in the @7ecutive ranch on a case tocase basis, to continue in the service to complete the 15-year service requirement to avail of the old-age

pension under ection 11 of .+. 1186. y limiting the e7tension of service to only one !1" year woulddefeat the beneficial intendment of the retirement provisions of .+. 1186.

7/22/2019 Cena vs Csc 211 Scra 179

4/6

%n resolving the question whether or not to allow a compulsory retiree to continue in the service tocomplete the 15-year service, there must be present an essential factor before an application under

ection 11 par. !b" of .+. 1186 may be granted by the employer or government office concerned. %n thecase of officials of the 4udiciary, the *ourt allows a ma2ing up or compensating for lac2 of required age or

service only if satisfied that the career of the retiree was mar2ed by competence, integrity, and dedicationto the public service !#e; $regorio ineda, supra". %t must be so in the instant case.

%t is interesting to note that the phrase =he shall be allowed to continue in the service to complete thefifteen years= found in ection 11 !b" of .+. 1186 is a reproduction of the phrase in the original te7t

found in ection 1 !e" of *ommonwealth &ct 16, as amended, otherwise 2nown as the =$overnmentervice %nsurance &ct= approved on ovember 18, 1936. )here is nothing in the original te7t as well as inthe revised version which would serve as the basis for providing the allowable e7tension period to only

one !1" year. )here is li2ewise no indication that ection 11 par. !b" of .+. 1186 contemplates aborderline situation where a compulsory retiree on his 65th birthday has completed more than 18, but less

than 15 years of government service., i.e.only a few months short of the 15-year requirement which

would enable him to collect an old-age pension.

Chile it is true that the &dministrative *ode of 19' has given the *ivil ervice *ommission the authority

=to ta2e appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel matters in the *ivil ervice includinge7tension of service beyond retirement age=, the said provision cannot be e7tended to embrace matters

not covered by the #evised $overnment ervice %nsurance &ct of 19'' !to. )omas vs. oard of )a7

&ppeals, 93 hil. 3'6, 3, =citing 1 *.4. 85-86". )he authority referred to therein is limited only tocarrying into effect what the special law, #evised $overnment %nsurance &ct of 19'', or any otherretirement law being invo2ed provides. %t cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law.

)he *ivil ervice *ommission Memorandum *ircular o. ' being in the nature of an administrativeregulation, must be governed by the principle that administrative regulations adopted under legislative

authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be forthe sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions !eople vs. Maceren, $.#. o. /-3166,

0ctober 1, 19'', '9 *#& 85E )eo7on v. Members of the oard of &dministrators, /-5619, 4une 3,

19', 33 *#& 55E Manuel v. $eneral &uditing 0ffice, /-95, +ecember 9, 19'1, 8 *#& 66E+eluao v. *asteel, /-196, &ugust 9, 1969, 9 *#& 35".

)he pronouncement of the *ourt in the case ofAugusta oledo !s. Ci!il "er!ice Co##ission$ et al., $.#

o. 9686-8', 0ctober 8, 1991, squarely applies in the instant case. Ce declared in the case of )oledothat the rule prohibiting 5'-year old persons from employment, reinstatement, or

re-employment in the government service provided under ection , #ule %%% of the *ivil ervice #ules onersonnel &ctions and olicies !*#&" cannot be accorded validity, because it is entirely a creation of

the *ivil ervice *ommission, having no basis in the law itself which it was meant to implement and itcannot be related to or connected with any specific provision of the law which it is meant to carry into

effect. )he *ourt, spea2ing thru 4ustice @dgardo /. aras, stated, thus;

)he power vested in the *ivil ervice *ommission was to implement the law or put it into

effect, not to add to itE to carry the law into effect or e7ecution, not to supply perceivedomissions in it. =y its administrative regulations, of course, the law itself can not be

e7tendedE said regulations cannot amend an act of *ongress.= !)eo7on v. Members of the

oard of &dministrators, hilippine ?eterans &dministration, 33 *#& 55, 59 F19'Gciting antos v. @stenBo, 19 hil. 819 F196GE see also, &nimos v. hilippine ?eterans&ffairs 0ffice, 1'8 *#& 18, 3-8 F199G in turn citing )eo7on".

)he considerations >ust e7pounded also conduce to the conclusion of the invalidity ofection , #ule %%% of the *#&. )he enactment of said section, relative to 5'-year old

persons, was also an act of supererogation on the part of the *ivil ervice *ommission sincethe rule has no relation to or connection with any provision of the law supposed to be

carried into effect. )he section was an addition to or e7tension of the law, not merely amode of carrying it into effect. !@mphasis supplied"

7/22/2019 Cena vs Csc 211 Scra 179

5/6

)he governing retirement law in the instant case is .+. 1186 otherwise 2nown as the =#evised$overnment ervice %nsurance &ct of 19''.= )he rule on limiting to only one !1" year the e7tension of

service of an employee who has reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years, but has less than 15years of service under *ivil ervice Memorandum *ircular o. ' s. 199, cannot li2ewise be accorded

validity because it has no relation to or connection with any provision of .+. 1186 supposed to be carriedinto effect. )he rule was an addition to or e7tension of the law, not merely a mode of carrying it into

effect. )he *ivil ervice *ommission has no power to supply perceived omissions in .+. 1186.

&s a matter of fact, Ce have liberally applied ection 11 par. !b" of .+. 1186 in two !" recent cases

where Ce allowed two employees in the 4udiciary who have reached the age of 65 to continue in thegovernment service to complete the 15-year service requirement to be entitled to the benefits under .+.1186.

%n a resolution dated 4anuary 3, 199 in &.M. o. '-'-139-M)*, Ce allowed Mrs. lorentina 4. ocade,

*ler2 of *ourt, Municipal )rial *ourt, +agami, /eyte, who at the time she reached the age of 65 years on0ctober 16, 19' had only 1 years of government service, to continue her services until 0ctober 1,

199. )hus, she was given a period of 5 years, to complete the15-year service requirement to be entitled to the retirement benefits under ection 11 par. !b" of .+

1186. )he *ourt observed that Mrs. ocade is still performing her duties without any adverse complaintsfrom her superior and that she is physically fit for wor2 per report of the Medical *linic.

)he *ourt, in a resolution dated &pril 1, 1991, in &.M. o. 91-3-3-*.-#e; #equest for the e7tension ofservice of Mrs. *risanta ). )iangco, allowed Mrs. *risanta ). )iangco, udget 0fficer ?, udget +ivision,

iscal Management and udget 0ffice of the upreme *ourt to continue her services until ebruary 1,1995. he was granted a period of 3 years, 1 months and 13 days because she has to her credit only 11

years, 1 month and 1' days of government service at the time she reached the age of 65 years on March9, 1991 in order that she be entitled to the retirement benefits under .+. o. 1186.

%t is erroneous to apply to petitioner *ena who has rendered 11 years, 9 months and 6 days of

government service, ection 1, par. !b" of .+. 1186 which provides that =a member who has rendered

at least three !3" years but less than 15 years of service at the time of separation shall, . . . uponseparation after age si7ty, receive a cash equivalent to 1H of his average monthly compensation for

every year of service.=

)he applicable law should be ection 11 par. !b" of .+. 1186 which allows him to e7tend his 11 years, 9

months and 6 days to complete the 15-year of service consistent with the beneficial intendment of .+1186 and which right is sub>ect to the discretion of the government office concerned.

ection 1 par. !b" of .+. 1186 does not apply to the case of herein *ena, because he opted to continuein the service to complete the 15-year service requirement pursuant to ection 11 par. !b" of .+. 1186.

)he completion of the 15-year service requirement under ection 11 par. !b" parta2es the nature of aprivilege given to an employee who has reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years, but has less

than 15 years of service. %f said employee opted to avail of said privilege, he is entitled to the benefits ofthe old-age pension. 0n the other hand, if the said employee opted to retire upon reaching the

compulsory retirement age of 65 years although he has less than 15 years of service, he is entitled to thebenefits provided for under ection 1 of .+. 1186 i.e. a cash equivalent to 1H of his average monthly

compensation for every year of service.

)he right under ection 11, par. !b" is open to all employees similarly situated, so it does not offend the

constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law. )here is nothing absurd or inequitable in rewardingan employee for completion of the 15-year service beyond the retirement age. %f he would be better off

than the one who has served for 18 years but who is separated from the service at the age of 68, it wouldbe only >ust and proper as he would have wor2ed for the whole period of 15 years as required by law for

entitlement of the old-age pension. %ndeed, a longer service should merit a greater reward. esides, hisentitlement to the old-age pension is conditioned upon such completion. )hus, if the service is not

completed due to death or incapacity, he would be entitled to the benefit under ection 1, par!b", i.e.cash equivalent to 1H of his average monthly compensation for every year of service.

7/22/2019 Cena vs Csc 211 Scra 179

6/6

inally, in view of the aforesaid right accorded under ection 11, par. !b" of .+. 1186, petitioner *enashould not be covered by Memorandum *ircular o. 65 issued by then @7ecutive ecretary *atalino

Macaraig on 4une 18, 19. Memorandum *ircular o. 65 allowing retention of service for only si7 !6"months for =e7tremely meritorious reasons= should apply only to employees or officials who have reached

the compulsory retirement age of 65 years but who, at the same time, have completed the 15-yearservice requirement for retirement purposes. %t should not apply to employees or officials who have

reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years, but who opted to avail of the old-age pension underpar. !b", ection 11 of .+. 1186, in which case, they are allowed, at the discretion of the agency

concerned, to complete the 15-year service requirement.

&**0#+%$/I, the petition is granted. )he /and #egistration &uthority !/#&" of the +epartment of 4usticehas the discretion to allow petitioner $audencio *ena to e7tend his 11 years, 9 months and 6 days of

government service to complete the 15-year service so that he may retire with full benefits under ection11 par. !b" of .+. 1186.

0 0#+@#@+.

%ar!asa$ C.&.$ 'utierre$ &r.$ Cru$ Paras$ Feliciano$ idin$ *egalado$ +a!ide$ &r.$ %ocon and ellosillo$ &&.$concur.