SC OKs higher retirement benefits for ex-CJ Panganiban

Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban is entitled to higher retirement benefits after the Supreme Court ruled that his almost four-year consultancy work for the Department of Education in the 1960s should be credited as part of his government service. In an 11-page decision written by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, the high court said the court said a "careful perusal of the actual function and responsibilities of CJ Panganiban... reveal that he performed actual works and was assigned multifarious tasks necessary and desirable to the main purpose of the DepEd and the Board of National Education." , The SC resolution stemmed from a request made by the former chief justice for the Court to recognize his stint as legal consultant of the BNE and legal counsel of the Secretary of Education from January 1962 until December 1965, as part of his government service. Counting his years as legal consultant, Panganiban would have met the 15-year requirement as provided for in Republic Act 9946 to be qualified to receive higher retirement benefits. The administrative office of the SC had earlier denied the initial request made by Panganiban on June 10, 2008, prompting Panganiban to elevate the matter to the en banc. The SC administrative office insisted that a consultancy or contract service cannot be considered as government service in accordance with Executive Order 292. Without his almost four-year stint as legal consultant for the Education Department, Panganiban's recognized total government service would only cover 11 years, one month and 27 days, disqualifying him from availing of higher retirement benefits. Panganiban was the Supreme Court's 21st chief justice, and served from December 2005 to December 2006. In deciding on Panganiban's request, the court cited the cases of former Justice Abraham Sarmiento, whose post-retirement work as special legal counsel to the University of the Philippines was credited as part of his government service; and former Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, whose legal counseling work for the Agrava Fact Finding Board during the Marcos regime was also counted. "The Court sees no reason not to likewise credit in CJ Panganiban's favor the work he had performed as legal counsel to the DepEd and its Secretary, not to mention his concurrent work as consultant to the BNE, and accordingly, qualify him for entitlement to retirement benefits," the court said. The en banc voted 8-6-1, with Perlas-Bernabe joined in the majority by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, and Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco, Mariano del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, Bienvenido Reyes, and Marvic Leonen., Those who dissented were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-deCastro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Martin Villarama Jr, and Jose Mendoza. , Associate Justice Roberto Abad inhibited "for past favor received from CJ A.V. Panganiban." As a result of the ruling, the high court instructed the SC Office of Administrative Services to recompute Panganiban's creditable government service and his corresponding retirement benefits. Pandora's Box In his dissenting opinion, Brion said Panganiban's request should be denied since there must be an appointment to a position that is part of a government organizational structure before any work rendered can be considered government service. Brion said the SC had done some "flip-flopping" in granting Panganiban's request, stressing that the SC had already earlier denied Panganiban's first request for full benefits. SC Deputy Clerk of Court Eden Candelaria's had denied Panganiban's first request on June 10, 2008. In response, the majority said: "Justice Brion is mistaken in his belief that the Court is reversing itself in this case. There is no flip-flopping situation to speak of since this is the first instance that the Court En Banc is being asked to pass upon a request concerning the computation of CJ Panganiban's creditable service for purposes of adjusting his retirement benefits." The court added that it can anyway "take a second look" into the merits of a request and eventually overturn a ruling that is determined to be inconsistent with the principles of fairness and equality. In his dissent, Brion also insisted that Panganiban showed no substantial proof to support his work at the DepEd and the BNE constituted government work. However, the majority ruled that the sworn statements submitted to he court by retired Justice Bernardo Pardo and former Education Secretary Alejandro Roces proved otherwise. In her own dissenting opinion, Leonardo-De Castro said it was "erroneous" to consider all services rendered for the government as government service which can be used to claim retirement benefits. She said there had long been "settled legal principles and doctrines" about the character of consultancy services rendered to the government. She said since government consultants do not take an "oath of office," their services should not be credit as government service. "One who does not take an oath of office which demands the highest standard and responsibilities of public service is understandably not entitled to enjoy the benefits and privileges of a public officer or employee," she said. "The ruling of the majority, having set a precedent, may have now opened a Pandora's box of claims for retirement benefits previously denied because prior to the ruling of the majority in this case, consultancy services rendered to the government have consistently not been credited as part of government service," Leonardo-De Castro added. — DVM, GMA News