This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-12-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Similarly, in Re: Judge Alex Z. Reyes,[43] the Court dismissed CTA Judge Reyes' invocation of the doctrine of liberal construction of retirement laws to justify his request that the last step increment of his salary grade be used in the computation of his retirement pay and terminal leave benefits, and held: In Borromeo, the court had occasion to say: "It is axiomatic that retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited. All doubts as to the intent of the law should be resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve its humanitarian purposes." Such interpretation in favor of the retiree is unfortunately not called for nor warranted, where the clear intent of the applicable law and rules are demonstrably against the petitioner's claim. (Paredes v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 88879, March 21, 1991). Section 4 is explicit and categorical in its prohibition and[,] unfortunately for Judge Reyes[,] applies squarely to the instant case.[44] (emphasis ours; italics supplied) Finally, in Gov't Service Insurance System v. Civil Service Commission,[45] the Court was asked to resolve whether government service rendered on a per diem basis is creditable for computing the length of service for retirement | |||||