Facts:
In 1975, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 765 was issued constituting the Integrated National Police (INP) to be composed of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) as the nucleus and the integrated police forces as components thereof. Complementing P.D. No. 765 was P.D. No. 11843 dated August 26, 1977 (INP Law, hereinafter) issued to professionalize the INP and promote career development therein. On December 13, 1990, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6975, entitled "AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE UNDER A REORGANIZED DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," hereinafter referred to as PNP Law, was enacted.
Under Section 23 of said law, the Philippine National Police (PNP) would initially consist of the members of the INP, created under P.D. No. 765, as well as the officers and enlisted personnel of the PC. A little less than eight (8) years later, or on February 25, 1998, R.A. No. 6975 was amended by R.A. No. 8551, otherwise known as the "PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE REFORM AND REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1998."
Among other things, the amendatory law reengineered the retirement scheme in the police organization. Relevantly, PNP personnel, under the new law, stood to collect more retirement benefits than what INP members of equivalent rank, who had retired under the INP Law, received.
In the RTC, all INP retirees, spearheaded by the Manila’s Finest Retirees Association, Inc. filed a petition for declaratory relief, the petition pray that a –DECLARATORY JUDGMENT be rendered in their favor, DECLARING with certainty that they, as INP-retirees, are truly absorbed and equally considered as PNP-retirees and thus, entitled to enjoy the SAME or IDENTICAL retirement benefits being bestowed to PNP-retirees by virtue of said PNP Law or Republic Act No. 6975, as amended by Republic Act 8551, with the corollary mandate for the respondents-government agencies to effect the immediate adjustment on their previously received disparate retirement benefits, retroactive to its effectivity, and with due payment thereof. The GSIS moved to dismiss the petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and cause of action.
On the other hand, the CSC, DBM, NAPOLCOM and PNP, in their respective answers, asserted that the petitioners could not claim the more generous retirement benefits under R.A. No. 6975 because at no time did they become PNP members, having retired prior to the enactment of said law.
The RTC renders JUDGMENT DECLARING the INP Retirees entitled to the same or identical retirement benefits and such other benefits being granted, accorded and bestowed upon the PNP Retirees under the PNP Law (RA No. 6975, as amended).
On April 2, 2003, the trial court issued what it denominated as Supplement to the Decision whereunder it granted the GSIS’ motion to dismiss and thus considered the basic petition as withdrawn with respect to the latter. From the adverse decision of the trial court, the remaining respondents, namely, DBM, PNP, NAPOLCOM and CSC, interposed an appeal to the CA.
The CA denied the motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA committed a serious error in law in affirming the decision of the Trial Court notwithstanding that it is contrary to law and established jurisprudence
Ruling:
Under the amendatory law (R.A. No. 8551), the application of rationalized retirement benefits to PNP members who have meanwhile retired before its (R.A. No. 8551) enactment was not prohibited.
Under Section 3822 it explicitly states that the rationalized retirement benefits schedule and program "shall have retroactive effect in favor of PNP members and officers retired or separated from the time specified in the law." The aforesaid provision should be made applicable to INP members who had retired prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6975.
The INP was, in effect, merely absorbed by the PNP and not abolished. Retirement laws should be liberally construed 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. The liberal approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes of the law in order that efficiency, security and well-being of government employees may be enhanced.
Regarding the contention of prospective application, the Court ruled that RA. No. 6975 itself contextually provides for its retroactive application to cover those who had retired prior to its effectivity. In a further bid to scuttle respondents’ entitlement to the desired retirement benefits, the petitioners fault the trial court for ordering the immediate adjustments of the respondents’ retirement benefits when the basic petition filed before it was one for declaratory relief.
To the petitioners, such petition does not essentially entail an executory process, the only relief proper under that setting being a declaration of the parties’ rights and duties. Petitioners’ above posture is valid to a point. However, the execution of judgments in a petition for declaratory relief is not necessarily indefensible.
In Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation[PDIC] v. Court of Appeals, categorically ruled: Now, there is nothing in the nature of a special civil action for declaratory relief that proscribes the filing of a counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed or contract subject of the complaint.
A special civil action is after all not essentially different from an ordinary civil action, which is generally governed by Rules 1 to 56 of the Rules of Court, except that the former deals with a special subject matter which makes necessary some special regulation.
But the identity between their fundamental nature is such that the same rules governing ordinary civil suits may and do apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with or if they may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar rules governing special civil actions.
Under Sec. 6 of Rule 64, the action for declaratory relief may be converted into an ordinary action and the parties allowed to file such pleadings as may be necessary or proper, if before the final termination of the case "a breach or violation of an … ordinance, should take place."
The Court sees no reason for treating this case differently from PDIC and Matalin.This disposition becomes all the more appropriate considering that the respondents, as petitioners in the RTC, pleaded for the immediate adjustment of their retirement benefits which, significantly, the herein petitioners, as respondents in the same court, did not object to. Being aware of said prayer, the petitioners then already knew the logical consequence if, as it turned out, a declaratory judgment is rendered in the respondents’ favor.
Hence, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed decision and resolution of the CA.
No comments:
Post a Comment