GR 103578; (January, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 103578 January 29, 1993
JUDGE RODOLFO T. ALLARDE, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT and the MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF MUNTINLUPA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Judge Rodolfo T. Allarde was the Presiding Judge of Branch LXXX, Metropolitan Trial Court in Muntinlupa 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. In computing his retirement pay, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) included a lump sum of P240,000.00, representing five years of the P4,000.00 monthly allowance he had been receiving from the Municipality of Muntinlupa, subject to the availability of municipal funds. The Sangguniang Bayan of Muntinlupa appropriated this amount via Resolution No. 90-145. However, the Metro Manila Authority denied the claim, citing a Commission on Audit (COA) ruling that such allowances are expense items, not compensation for retirement computation. Petitioner filed a claim with the COA, which denied it in Decision No. 1877 dated June 5, 1991. Motions for reconsideration were likewise denied in COA Decision Nos. 1983 (November 5, 1991) and 2159 (January 27, 1992), prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the P4,000.00 monthly allowance petitioner received from the Municipality of Muntinlupa should be included in the computation of his retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 910 , as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the COA’s decision. The Court held that Section 3 of P.D. No. 1438 clearly and unambiguously limits the computation of the five-year lump sum gratuity to “the highest monthly salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, living and representation allowances” received at retirement. Applying the principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, other allowances are excluded. The petitioner’s P4,000.00 monthly allowance was not proven to be a transportation, living, or representation allowance. A sample disbursement voucher showed the amount was a reimbursement for expenses incurred while performing duties, making it a non-commutable expense item, not part of remuneration. Furthermore, Letter of Instruction No. 1418, which authorizes local governments to pay additional allowances to judges, uses the permissive “may,” indicating the allowance is not a matter of right but dependent on the local government’s will, akin to an honorarium. Including such variable allowances in retirement computations would lead to inequality and disparity among judges based on the wealth of their assigned localities, which the retirement law did not intend.