Scribd
Upload
51 views2 pages

Allarde vs. COA

This case discusses whether a monthly allowance received by a judge from the municipality should be included in computations of retirement benefits. The judge received an additional P4,000 monthly allowance on top of his salary. However, the Commission on Audit denied including this in retirement benefits calculations, arguing it was an expense reimbursement rather than compensation. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that under the clear language of the law, only the highest monthly salary plus transportation, living, and representation allowances can be included in retirement benefit computations. As the petitioner did not prove the additional monthly allowance was a representation, living, or transportation allowance, it cannot be included in his retirement benefits.

Uploaded by

Gladys Zabala
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views2 pages

Allarde vs. COA

This case discusses whether a monthly allowance received by a judge from the municipality should be included in computations of retirement benefits. The judge received an additional P4,000 monthly allowance on top of his salary. However, the Commission on Audit denied including this in retirement benefits calculations, arguing it was an expense reimbursement rather than compensation. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that under the clear language of the law, only the highest monthly salary plus transportation, living, and representation allowances can be included in retirement benefit computations. As the petitioner did not prove the additional monthly allowance was a representation, living, or transportation allowance, it cannot be included in his retirement benefits.

Uploaded by

Gladys Zabala
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

JUDGE RODOLFO T. ALLARDE, petitioner, vs.

THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT and the


MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF MUNTINLUPA, respondents. G.R. No. 103578

Jurisprudence:
It is an elementary principle of statutory construction that where the words and phrases
of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous, the meaning and intention of the legislature
should be determined from the language employed, and where there is no ambiguity in
the words, there is no room for construction.

Facts:
Petitioner Rodolfo T. Allarde was the Presiding Judge of BranchLXX Metropolitan Trial
Court in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, until his courtesy resignation was accepted on January
13, 1987. He applied for retirement under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1438, which this Court approved on July 11, 1989. GSIS included
the amount of P240,000.00 representing the five-year lump sum of the P4,000.00-monthly
allowance which he had been receiving from the Municipality of Muntinlupa during his
incumbency therein as judge, provided said lump sum of P240,000.00 should be charged
to the funds of the municipality pursuant to Section 30 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 866, and
subject to the availability of funds. On April 16, 1990, the Sangguniang Bayan of
Muntinlupa, by Resolution No. 90-145, appropriated and awarded the amount of
P240,000.00 in favor of the petitioner. However, COA Denied ruling that allowances
formerly granted you by the Municipal Government of Muntinlupa, by the very nature and
intent of the grant, are expense items not to be equated with compensation for purposes
of computing retirement benefits. Petitioner's claim is anchored on Section 3 of Republic
Act 910, An Act Providing for The Retirement of Justices and All Judges in the Judiciary,
as amended by P.D. No. 1438

Issue:
Whether or the P4,000.00 monthly allowance that the petitioner had been receiving from
the Municipality of Muntinlupa should be included in the computation of his retirement
benefits under Republic Act 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438.
Ruling:
It is an elementary principle of statutory construction that where the words and phrases
of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous, the meaning and intention of the legislature
should be determined from the language employed, and where there is no ambiguity in
the words, there is no room for construction.
Accordingly, the provisions of Section 3, P.D. No. 1438, which are clear and
unambiguous, should be given their plain and natural meaning. In as much as the law
limits the computation of the lump sum of 5 years' gratuity to "the highest monthly salary
plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, living and representation
allowances that the judge was receiving on the date of his retirement, "it is understood
that other allowances are excluded. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius
The petitioner failed to prove that the P4,000.00 additional monthly allowance that he
was receiving from the Municipal Government of Muntinlupa was a representation, living
or transportation allowance, for as indicated in the sample disbursement voucher that he
used to fill up whenever he claimed such allowance, the amount was reimbursement for
expenses which Judge Allarde certified were incurred by me while performing my duties.

You might also like