Chua v.

CSC (Civil Service Commission) Case Digest

Chua v. Civil Service Commission

G.R. No. 88979 (February 7, 1992)

FACTS:
RA 6683 provided benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation as well as for
involuntary separation due to reorganization. Section 2 covers those who are qualified: Sec.
2. Coverage. This Act shall cover all appointive officials and employees of the National
Government. The benefits authorized under this Act shall apply to all regular, temporary,
casual and emergency employees, regardless of age, who have rendered at least a total of
two (2) consecutive years of government service as of the date of separation Petitioner
Lydia Chua, believing that she is qualified to avail of the benefits of the program, filed an
application on January 30, 1989 with Respondent Administration, which, however,
denied the same. Recourse by the petitioner to Respondent Commission yielded the
same result.

ISSUE:
W/N Petitioners status as a co-terminus employee is excluded from the benefits of RA
6683 (Early Retirement Law).

HELD:
The petition is granted. The Early Retirement Law would violate the equal protection
clause of the constitution if the Supreme Court were to sustain Respondents
submission that the benefits of said law are to be denied a class of government employees
who are similarly situated as those covered by the said law. The court applied the doctrine of
necessary implication in deciding this case