parties allowed to file such pleadings as may be

DBM, et. al. vs. MANILA’S FINEST RETIREES ASSOCIATION, INC. necessary or proper, if before the final termination of
G.R. No. 169466 | May 9, 2007 the case "a breach or violation of an … ordinance,
should take place.”

Doctrine: The same rules governing ordinary civil suits may and In the present case, the Court sees no reason for treating this
do apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with or if they case differently from PDIC and Matalin. This disposition becomes
may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar rules all the more appropriate considering that the respondents
governing special civil actions. pleaded for the immediate adjustment of their retirement
benefits which DBM did not object to. Being aware of said prayer,
Facts: In 1975, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 765 was issued the DBM then already knew the logical consequence if a
constituting the Integrated National Police (INP) to be composed declaratory judgment is rendered in the Manila’s Finest Retirees
of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) and the integrated police Association, Inc.’s favor.
forces as components thereof. Later on, R.A. No. 6975
(Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990)
was enacted wherein Section 23 of the said law provides that the
PNP would initially consist of the members of the INP as well as
the officers and enlisted personnel of the PC. Eight years later,
R.A. No. 8551 (PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998) was
enacted, amending R.A. No. 6975 and reengineered the
retirement scheme in the police organization wherein the PNP
personnel stood to collect more retirement benefits than what
the INP members of equivalent rank, who had retired under the
INP Law. Thus, all INP retirees, led by the Manila’s Finest Retirees
Association, Inc. filed a petition for declaratory relief with the RTC
of Manila impleading several government agencies alleging that
INP retirees were unconscionably and arbitrarily excluded from
the higher and adjusted benefits accorded to the PNP retirees.

The trial court ruled in favor of the INP retirees in which it held
that the PNP Law, as amended, merely provided for the
absorption of its police functions by the PNP thus, the INP
retirees are entitled to the same benefits as the PNP retirees, and
in the same decision, it ordered the proper adjustments of the INP
retirees’ benefits and its immediate implementation.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the

immediate adjustments of the INP retirees’ benefits when the
basic petition filed before was one for declaratory relief. NO.

Ruling: The execution of judgments in a petition for declaratory

relief is not necessarily indefensible. In PDIC v. Court of Appeals,
the Court categorically ruled:

Now, there is nothing in the nature of a special civil

action for declaratory relief that proscribes the filing of
a counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed,
or contract subject of the complaint. A special civil
action is after all not essentially different from an
ordinary civil action, which is generally governed by
Rules 1 to 56 of the Rules of Court, except that the
former deals with a special subject matter which
makes necessary some special regulation. But the
identity between their fundamental nature is such that
the same rules governing ordinary civil suits may and
do apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with
or if they may serve to supplement the provisions of
the peculiar rules governing special civil actions.

Furthermore, in Matalin Coconut Co., Inc. v. Municipal Council of

Malabang, Lanao del Sur, the Court upheld the lower court’s order
for a party to refund the amounts paid by the adverse party under
the municipal ordinance therein questioned, stating:

“Under Sec. 6 of Rule 64, the action for declaratory

relief may be converted into an ordinary action and the