ALLARDE vs.

COA

Facts:

Petitioner applied for retirement under R.A. 910, which was amended by P.D No. 1438. In computing his
total retirement pay, GSIS included the amount of 240,000 representing the five-year lump sum of the
monthly allowance which he had been receiving from Muntinlupa during his incumbency therein as
judge.

COA denied petitioner's additional retirement benefit on the ground that monthly allowances formerly
granted by the Municipal Government of Muntinlupa are expense items not to be equated with the
compensation for purposes of computing retirement benefits.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the monthly allowance the petitioner had been receiving should be included in
computation of its retirement benefits under R.A no. 910 as amended by P.D No. 1438?

RULING:
It is specified in the law, that only transportation, living representation allowances may be included in the
computation of the first five-year lump sum retirement benefits for members of the judiciary. It is
understood that other allowances are excluded.

Petitioner in this case failed to prove that the 4,000 monthly allowances that he was receiving was a
repsentation, living or transportation allowance. Also, the amount was said to be in the nature of
reimbursement for expenses.

Where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous, the meaning and intention of the
legislature should be determined from the language employed, and where there is no ambiguity in the
words, there is no room for construction.