You are on page 1of 1

Lydia O.

Chua, petitioner
vs
The Civil Service Commission, The National Irrigation Administration and The
Department of Budget and Management, respondent
G.R. 88979, February 7, 1992
Facts:
Petitioner Lydia Chua believing that she is qualified to avail the early retirement benefits under
Republic Act No. 6683, filed an application on Jan 30 1989 with respondent Natl. Irrigation
Administration which, however, denied the same; instead, she was offered separation benefits for
every year of her service commencing from 1980. With further argument that, petioner is not a
regular employee and career employee of NIA - her position is not included in the regular
plantilla. She belongs to the non-career service, hence, a coterminous employee. However,
petitior Chua was hired and re-hired in four (4) successive projects during a span of fifteen years.
Although no proof of existence of a work pool can be assumed, her service record cannot be
disregarded.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner has a clear entitlement of the benefits under Republic Act No.
6683.
RULING:
Supreme Court believes, and so holds, that the denial by the respondents NIA and CSC of
petitioner's application for early retirement benefits under RA No. 6683 is unreasonable,
unjustified, and oppresive, as petitioner had filed for voluntary retirement within a reasonable
period and she is entitled to the benefits of the said law. While the application was filed after
expiration of her term, the court gave allowance for the fact that she originally filed the
application on her own without assistance of counsel. In the insterest of substantial justice, her
application is therefore, granted. After all, she served the govt not only for two (2) years - the
minimum requirement under the law but for almost fifteen (15) years in four (4) successive
governmental projects.

Floriv E. Villalobos
JD M-1