Leonor, Affle John L.

Request of Judge Tito Gustilo, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1868, 13 August 2004

FACTS:
On May 26, 2004, Judge Tito Gustilo of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City,
Branch 23 wrote a letter to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide requesting that the
second tranche of the Special Allowance granted to judges under RA 9227 be included
in the computation of his retirement benefits as he is due to retire at the age of 70
(compulsory retirement) on September 29, 2004, a month and twelve days before the
said tranche be implemented with reference to OCA Circular No. 48 – 2004. RA 9227
grants special allowances to all justices, judges, and all other positions in the Judiciary
with the equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals and judges of the Regional
Trial Court equivalent to one hundred percent of their respective monthly salary to be
implemented for a period of four years. The Office of the Court of Administrator (OCA)
issued Memorandum dated June 18, 2004 that recommends to the Chief Justice the
granting of the request of Judge Gustilo. The Court, in a Resolution, referred the
request along with the OCA’s Memorandum to Chief Attorney Edna E. Diño for study
and recommendation. The Chief Attorney recommends that the request of Judge
Gustilo be denied for not being in accord with RA 9227 and the Guidelines promulgated
by the Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the request of Judge Tito Gustilo to include in the computation of
his retirement benefits the second tranche of the Special Allowances for judges allowed
under RA 9227 considering that his retirement a month a twelve days before its
implementation.

RULING:
The request to include the second tranche of Special Allowance in the
computation of retirement benefits of Judge Gustilo was denied. The Court held that
Section 5 of RA 9227 provides and shall be construed in its plain meaning that before
the Special Allowance be considered in the computation of retirement benefits, it should
have been “actually received” and the tranche or tranches thereof should have been
“already implemented and received” at the date of retirement. Furthermore, the Court
highlights that pursuant to its promulgated Guidelines in implementing the said Act, the
phrase “has accrued at the time of retirement” is used. Likewise, visiting the
congressional record, the Court deduced that the intent of lawmakers is that only the
Special Allowance actually received at the date of retirement shall be included in the
computation of the retirement benefits. Therefore, in the case of Judge Gustilo, on the
date of his retirement, the second tranche of the Special Allowance has not accrued yet
and is not “actually received”.