Cajiuat v Mathay, 124 SCRA 710

G.R. No. L-39746. September 27, 1983.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLANDINO SAN

MIGUEL Y BELGAR, ALIAS "EDUARDO MENDEZ Y BELGAR", PETER DOE,
ALIAS "ALBERT ADIN, JR.", JOHN DOE ALIAS "BALUT", Accused, BLANDINO
SAN MIGUEL Y BELGAR, Accused-Appellant.

Facts:

The case is a decision from the Second Division of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines, dated September 24, 1983. The case involves a group of petitioners who
are seeking double gratuity under Paragraph 3, Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 4.
This provision states that permanent employees of the Rice and Corn Administration
who are retirable are entitled to a gratuity equivalent to one month salary for every year
of service, in addition to other benefits provided by existing laws and regulations. The
petitioners argue that denying them double gratuity would render the clause
meaningless and is contrary to statutory construction and interpretation. However, the
court rejects their claim, stating that there must be a clear and unequivocal provision to
justify double pension. The general language used in the decree does not meet this
test. The court also emphasizes the rule against double compensation, citing previous
cases that support the prohibition on receiving both compensation and pension, annuity,
or gratuity for the same services. Therefore, the court denies the petition for lack of
merit and affirms the decision of the Auditor General to deny the claim for double
gratuity.

Issue:

The main issue being discussed in the article is whether a group of petitioners are
entitled to receive double gratuity under Presidential Decree No. 4

Ruling:
The ruling of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, as stated in the document, is that
there must be a clear and unequivocal provision to justify a double pension. The general
language used in Paragraph 3, Section 26 of Presidential Decree No. 4 falls short of
meeting this requirement. The court emphasized the rule against double compensation
and cited previous cases that support the prohibition on receiving both compensation
and pension, annuity, or gratuity for the same services. Therefore, the court denies the
petition for double gratuity, affirming the decision of the Auditor General to deny the
claim for double gratuity.