Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IN RE: APPLICATION FOR LIFE PENSION UNDER REP. ACT 910. RUPERTO G. MARTIN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. 11238-Ret. 2015-08-18	IN RE: EXPIRATION OF FIXED TERM OF OFFICE OF ATTY. SAADUDDIN A. ALAUYA VELASCO JR., J.
Time and again, the Court has followed the practice of liberal treatment in passing upon retirement issues and claims,[21] particularly of judges and justices, obviously in keeping with the beneficial intendment[22] of retirement laws which is to reward satisfactory past services and at the same time provide the retiree with the means to support himself and his family in his remaining years.[23] In the recent case of Re: Application for Survivorship Pension Benefits under [RA] No. 9946 of Mrs. Pacita A. Gruba,[24] the Court restated the principle underlying such benign interpretation in favor of retired personnel, thus: On several occasions, this Court has liberally interpreted retirement laws in keeping with its purpose. In Government Service Insurance System v. De Leon:
	AM No. 10-9-15-SC 2013-02-12	RE: REQUEST OF CHIEF JUSTICE ARTEMIO v. PANGANIBAN FOR RE-COMPUTATION OF HIS CREDITABLE SERVICE FOR PURPOSE OF RE-COMPUTING HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The Supreme Court has unquestionably followed the practice of liberal treatment in passing upon retirement claims of judges and justices, thus: (1) waiving the lack of required length of service in cases of disability or death while in actual service[19] or distinctive service; (2) adding accumulated leave credits to the actual length of government service in order to qualify one for retirement; (3) tacking post-retirement service in order to complete the years of government service required; (4) extending the full benefits of retirement upon compassionate and humanitarian considerations;[20] and (5) considering legal counselling work for a government body or institution as creditable government service.
	AM No. 10-9-15-SC 2013-02-12	RE: REQUEST OF CHIEF JUSTICE ARTEMIO v. PANGANIBAN FOR RE-COMPUTATION OF HIS CREDITABLE SERVICE FOR PURPOSE OF RE-COMPUTING HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Similarly, the Court considered a personal circumstance in applying a liberal approach to retirement laws in the case of Justice Ruperto G. Martin.[58] Justice Martin suffered a cerebral stroke during his incumbency as Supreme Court Associate Justice and was compelled to retire two years and 17 days short of the retirement age.[59] The Court ruled: The ten-year lump sum payment provided in Section 3 of RA 910 is intended to assist the stricken retiree in meeting his hospital and doctors' bills and expenses for his support. The law is not intended to deprive him of his lifetime pension if he is also entitled to retire under Section 1 and is fortunate to be still alive after ten years. The retirement law aims to assist the retiree in his old age, not to punish him for having survived.[60]
	AM No. 10654-Ret. 2008-06-27	IN RE: PETITION FOR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF FOUR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Ordinarily, since Judge Alano retired under Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 910, he will no longer be entitled to a monthly pension during the rest of his natural life. However, at the time Judge Alano retired on April 4, 2001, he was already qualified to retire under Sec. 1. Thus, pursuant to our ruling in Re: Ruperto G. Martin,[6] his having applied for disability retirement would not serve to deprive him of his monthly pension, assuming he is still alive beyond the period of 10 years after his retirement on April 4, 2001.