390

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit
*

G.R. No. 162224. June 7, 2007.

2nd LT. SALVADOR PARREO represented by his

daughter Myrna P. Caintic, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION
ON AUDIT and CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Commission on Audit A money claim is a demand for
payment of a sum of money, reimbursement or compensation
arising from law or contract due from or owing to a government
agency. Petitioner filed his money claim before the COA. A
money claim is a demand for payment of a sum of money,
reimbursement or compensation arising from law or contract due
from or owing to a government agency. Under Commonwealth
Act No. 327, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1445, money
claims against the government shall be filed before the COA.
Same Jurisdictions The jurisdiction of the Commission on
Audit (COA) over money claims against the government does not
include the power to rule on the constitutionality or validity of
laws.The jurisdiction of the COA over money claims against the
government does not include the power to rule on the
constitutionality or validity of laws. The 1987 Constitution vests
the power of judicial review or the power to declare
unconstitutional a law, treaty, international or executive
agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation in this Court and in all Regional Trial Courts.
Petitioners money claim essentially involved the constitutionality
of Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended. Hence, the COA did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners money
claim.
Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement Since PD 1638,
as amended, is about the new system of retirement and separation

from service of military personnel, it should apply to those who

were in the service at the time of its approval.We do not agree
with the interpretation of petitioner and the OSG that PD 1638,
as amended, should apply only to those who joined the military
after its effectiv
_______________
*

EN BANC.

391

VOL. 523, JUNE 7, 2007

391

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

ity. Since PD 1638, as amended, is about the new system of

retirement and separation from service of military personnel, it
should apply to those who were in the service at the time of its
approval. In fact, Section 2 of PD 1638, as amended, provides that
th[e] Decree shall apply to all military personnel in the service of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines. PD 1638, as amended, was
signed on 10 September 1979. Petitioner retired in 1982, long
after the approval of PD 1638, as amended. Hence, the provisions
of PD 1638, as amended, apply to petitioner.
Same Same Due Process Vested Rights It is only upon
retirement that military personnel acquire a vested right to
retirement benefits.PD 1638, as amended, does not impair any
vested right or interest of petitioner. Where the employee retires
and meets the eligibility requirements, he acquires a vested right
to the benefits that is protected by the due process clause. At the
time of the approval of PD 1638 and at the time of its amendment,
petitioner was still in active service. Hence, petitioners
retirement benefits were only future benefits and did not
constitute a vested right. Before a right to retirement benefits or
pension vests in an employee, he must have met the stated
conditions of eligibility with respect to the nature of employment,
age, and length of service. It is only upon retirement that military
personnel acquire a vested right to retirement benefits. Retirees
enjoy a protected property interest whenever they acquire a right
to immediate payment under preexisting law.

Same Same Same Same Retirement benefits of military

personnel are purely gratuitous in nature.The retirement
benefits of military personnel are purely gratuitous in nature.
They are not similar to pension plans where employee
participation is mandatory, hence, the employees have
contractual or vested rights in the pension which forms part of the
compensation.
Same Same Equal Protection Requisites for Valid
Classification.The constitutional right to equal protection of the
laws is not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification. To
be reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on substantial
distinctions which make real differences (b) must be germane to
the purpose of the law (c) must not be limited to existing
conditions only and (d) must apply equally to each member of the
class.

392

392

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

Same Same Same Compulsory Military Service The

constitutional right of the state to require all citizens to render
personal and military service necessarily includes not only private
citizens but also citizens who have retired from military service.
There is compliance with all these conditions. There is a
substantial difference between retirees who are citizens of the
Philippines and retirees who lost their Filipino citizenship by
naturalization in another country, such as petitioner in the case
before us. The constitutional right of the state to require all
citizens to render personal and military service necessarily
includes not only private citizens but also citizens who have
retired from military service. A retiree who had lost his Filipino
citizenship already renounced his allegiance to the state. Thus, he
may no longer be compelled by the state to render compulsory
military service when the need arises. Petitioners loss of Filipino
citizenship constitutes a substantial distinction that distinguishes
him from other retirees who retain their Filipino citizenship. If
the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that
make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated
differently from another.

Same Same Same Same Even when a retiree is no longer in

the active service, he is still a part of the Citizen Armed Forces.
Republic Act No. 7077 (RA 7077) affirmed the constitutional right
of the state to a Citizen Armed Forces. Section 11 of RA 7077
provides that citizen soldiers or reservists include exservicemen
and retired officers of the AFP. Hence, even when a retiree is no
longer in the active service, he is still a part of the Citizen Armed
Forces. Thus, we do not find the requirement imposed by Section
27 of PD 1638, as amended, oppressive, discriminatory, or
contrary to public policy. The state has the right to impose a
reasonable condition that is necessary for national defense. To
rule otherwise would be detrimental to the interest of the state.
Same Same Same Repatriation An AFP retiree who lost his
retirement benefits as a result of his naturalization in some other
country will be entitled to receive his monthly pension should he
reacquire his Filipino citizenship since he will again be entitled to
the benefits and privileges of Filipino citizenship reckoned from
the time of his reacquisition of Filipino citizenship.Petitioner
has other recourse if he desires to continue receiving his monthly
pension. Just recently, in AASJS MemberHector Gumangan
Calilung v. Simeon
393

VOL. 523, JUNE 7, 2007

393

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

Datumanong, 523 SCRA 105 (2007), this Court upheld the

constitutionality of RA 9225. If petitioner reacquires his Filipino
citizenship, he will even recover his naturalborn citizenship. In
Tabasa v. Court of Appeals, 500 SCRA 9 (2006), this Court
reiterated that [t]he repatriation of the former Filipino will allow
him to recover his naturalborn citizenship x x x. Petitioner will
be entitled to receive his monthly pension should he reacquire his
Filipino citizenship since he will again be entitled to the benefits
and privileges of Filipino citizenship reckoned from the time of his
reacquisition of Filipino citizenship. There is no legal obstacle to
the resumption of his retirement benefits from the time he
complies again with the condition of the law, that is, he can
receive his retirement benefits provided he is a Filipino citizen.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Michael P. Moralde for petitioner.
The Solicitor General and Office of the Judge
Advocate General for respondents.
CARPIO, J.:

The Case
1

Before the Court is a petition

for certiorari assailing the
9
2
3
January 2003 Decision and 13 January 2004 Resolution of
the Commission on Audit (COA).
_______________
Under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure.
Rollo, pp. 1112. Signed by Chairman Guillermo N. Carague and

Commissioners Raul C. Flores and Emmanuel M. Dalman.

3

Id., at pp. 1617.

394

394

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

The Antecedent Facts

Salvador Parreo (petitioner) served in the Armed Forces
of the Philippines (AFP) for 32 years. On 5 January 1982,
petitioner retired from the Philippine Constabulary with
the rank of 2nd Lieutenant. Petitioner availed, and
received payment, of a lump sum pension equivalent to
three years pay. In 1985, petitioner started receiving his
monthly pension amounting to P13,680.
Petitioner migrated to Hawaii and became a naturalized
American citizen. In January 2001, the AFP stopped
petitioners monthly pension in 4accordance with Section 27
of Presidential Decree No. 1638
(PD 1638), as amended by
5
Presidential Decree No. 1650. Section 27 of PD 1638, as

amended, provides that a retiree who loses his Filipino

citizenship shall be removed from the retired list and his
retirement benefits terminated upon loss of Filipino
citizenship.
Petitioner requested for reconsideration but the Judge
Advocate General of the AFP denied the request.
Petitioner filed a claim before the COA for the
continuance of his monthly pension.
The Ruling of the Commission on Audit
In its 9 January 2003 Decision, the COA denied petitioners
claim for lack of jurisdiction. The COA ruled:
_______________
4

Establishing A New System of Retirement and Separation for

Military Personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and For Other
Purposes, dated 10 September 1979.
5

Amending Sections 3 and 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1638 Entitled

Establishing A New System of Retirement and Separation for Military

Personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and For Other
Purposes, dated 8 November 1979.
395

VOL. 523, JUNE 7, 2007

395

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

It becomes immediately noticeable that the resolution of the
issue at hand hinges upon the validity of Section 27 of P.D. No.
1638, as amended. Pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution,
whenever a dispute involves the validity of laws, the courts, as
guardians of the Constitution, have the inherent authority to
determine whether a statute enacted by the legislature
transcends the limit imposed by the fundamental law. Where the
statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right but the
duty of the judiciary to declare such act as unconstitutional and
void. (Tatad vs. Secretary of Department of Energy, 281 SCRA
330) That being so, prudence dictates that this Commission defer
to the authority and jurisdiction of the judiciary to rule in the first
instance upon the constitutionality of the provision in question.
Premises considered, the request is denied for lack of
jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. Claimant is advised to file his
6

claim with the proper court of original jurisdiction.

claim with the proper court of original jurisdiction.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner

alleged that the COA has the power and authority to
incidentally rule on the constitutionality of Section 27 of
PD 1638, as amended. Petitioner alleged that a direct
recourse to the court would be dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner further
alleged that since his monthly pension involves
government funds, the reason for the termination of the
pension is subject to COAs authority and jurisdiction.
In its 13 January 2004 Resolution, the COA denied the
motion. The COA ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not apply if the
administrative body has, in the first place, no jurisdiction
over the case. The COA further ruled that even if it
assumed jurisdiction over the claim, petitioners
entitlement to the retirement benefits he was previously
receiving must necessarily cease upon the loss of his
Filipino citizenship in accordance with Section 27 of PD
1638, as amended.
_______________
6

Rollo, p. 12.
396

396

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

Hence, the petition before this Court.

The Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues:
1. Whether Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended, is
constitutional
2. Whether the COA has jurisdiction to rule on the
constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638, as
amended and
3. Whether PD 1638,
as amended, has retroactive or
7
prospective effect.

The Ruling of this Court

The petition has no merit.
Jurisdiction of the COA
Petitioner filed his money claim before the COA. A money
claim is a demand for payment of a sum of money,
reimbursement or compensation arising from law or8
contract due from or owing to a government
agency.
9
Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by
Presidential Decree No.
_______________
7
8

Id., at pp. 56.

Section 4(o), Rule I, 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure of the

Commission on Audit.
9

An Act Fixing the Time Within Which the Auditor General Shall

Render his Decisions and Prescribing the Manner of Appeal Therefrom.

Approved on 18 June 1938.
397

VOL. 523, JUNE 7, 2007

397

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

10

1445, money claims

against the government shall be filed
11
before the COA.
Section 2(1), Article IX(D) of the 1987 Constitution
prescribes the powers of the COA, as follows:
Sec. 2. (1) The Commission on Audit shall have the power,
authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts
pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or
uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or
pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including governmentowned or
controlled corporations with original charters, and on a postaudit
basis (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have
been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution (b)
autonomous state colleges and universities (c) other government
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries and (d)

such nongovernmental entities receiving subsidy or equity,

directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are
required by law or the granting institution to submit such audit
as a condition of subsidy or equity. However, where the internal
control system of the audited agencies is inadequate, the
Commission may adopt such measures, including temporary or
special preaudit, as are necessary and appropriate to correct the
deficiencies. It shall keep the general accounts of the Government
and, for such period as may be provided by law, preserve the
vouchers and other supporting papers pertaining thereto.

The jurisdiction of the COA over money claims against the

government does not include the power to rule on the
constitutionality or validity of laws. The 1987 Constitution
vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare
unconstitutional a law, treaty, international or executive
agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regula
_______________
10

Ordaining and Instituting a Government Auditing Code of the

Philippines. Signed on 11 June 1978.

11

See Department of Agriculture v. National Labor Relations

Commission, G.R. No. 104269, 11 November 1993, 227 SCRA 693

Carabao, Inc. v. Agricultural Productivity Commission, et al., 146 Phil.
236 35 SCRA 224 (1970).
398

398

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit
12

tion in this Court and in all Regional Trial Courts.

Petitioners money claim essentially involved the
constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended.
Hence, the COA did not commit grave abuse of discretion
in dismissing petitioners money claim.
Petitioner submits that the COA has the authority to
order the restoration of his pension even without ruling on
the constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended.
The COA actually ruled on the matter in its 13 January
2004 Resolution, thus:
Furthermore, assuming arguendo that this Commission assumed

jurisdiction over the instant case, claimants entitlement to the

retirement benefits he was previously receiving must necessarily
be severed or stopped upon the loss of his Filipino citizenship as
prescribed in Section 27, P.D. No. 1638, as amended by P.D. No.
13
1650.

The COA effectively denied petitioners claim because of

the loss of his Filipino citizenship.
Application of PD 1638, as amended
Petitioner alleges that PD 1638, as amended, should apply
prospectively. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
agrees with petitioner. The OSG argues that PD 1638, as
amended, should apply only to those who joined the
military service after its effectivity, citing Sections 33 and
35, thus:
Section 33. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed in any
manner to reduce whatever retirement and separation pay or
gratuity or other monetary benefits which any person is
heretofore receiving or is entitled to receive under the provisions
of existing law.
xxxx
_______________
12

Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 760 351 SCRA 44

(2001).
13

Rollo, p. 17.
399

VOL. 523, JUNE 7, 2007

399

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

Section 35. Except those necessary to give effect to the provisions
of this Decree and to preserve the rights granted to retired or
separated military personnel, all laws, rules and regulations
inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.

The OSG further argues that retirement laws are liberally

construed in favor of the retirees. Article 4 of the Civil Code
provides: Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the

contrary is provided. Section 36 of PD 1638, as amended,

provides that it shall take effect upon its approval. It was
signed on 10 September 1979. PD 1638, as amended, does
not provide for its retroactive application. There is no
question that PD 1638, as amended, applies prospectively.
However, we do not agree with the interpretation of
petitioner and the OSG that PD 1638, as amended, should
apply only to those who joined the military after its
effectivity. Since PD 1638, as amended, is about the new
system of retirement and separation from service of
military personnel, it should apply to those who were in the
service at the time of its approval. In fact, Section 2 of PD
1638, as amended, provides that th[e] Decree shall apply
to all military personnel in the service of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines. PD 1638, as amended, was signed on 10
September 1979. Petitioner retired in 1982, long after the
approval of PD 1638, as amended. Hence, the provisions of
PD 1638, as amended, apply to petitioner.
Petitioner Has No Vested Right to hisRetirement
Benefits
Petitioner alleges that Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended,
deprives him of his property which the Constitution and
statutes vest in him. Petitioner alleges that his pension,
being a property vested by the Constitution, cannot be
removed or taken from him just because he became a
naturalized American citizen. Petitioner further alleges
that the termination of
400

400

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

his monthly pension is a penalty equivalent to deprivation

of his life.
The allegations have no merit. PD 1638, as amended,
does not impair any vested right or interest of petitioner.
Where the employee retires and meets the eligibility
requirements, he acquires a vested right 14to the benefits
that is protected by the due process clause. At the time of
the approval of PD 1638 and at the time of its amendment,
petitioner was still in active service. Hence, petitioners

retirement benefits were only future benefits and did not

constitute a vested right. Before a right to retirement
benefits or pension vests in an employee, he must have met
the stated conditions of eligibility with respect 15to the
nature of employment, age, and length of service. It is
only upon retirement that military personnel acquire a
vested right to retirement benefits. Retirees enjoy a
protected property interest whenever they acquire
a right
16
to immediate payment under preexisting law.
Further, the retirement benefits of military personnel
are purely gratuitous in nature. They are not similar to
pension plans where employee participation is mandatory,
hence, the employees have contractual or vested 17rights in
the pension which forms part of the compensation.
Constitutionality of Section 27 of PD 1638
Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended, provides:
_______________
14

See Government Service Insurance System v. Montesclaros, G.R. No.

146494, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 441.

15

See Brion v. South Phil. Union Mission of 7th Day Adventist Church,

366 Phil. 967 307 SCRA 497 (1999).

16

Government Service Insurance System v. Montesclaros, supra note 14.

17

Id.
401

VOL. 523, JUNE 7, 2007

401

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

Section 27. Military personnel retired under Sections 4, 5, 10, 11
and 12 shall be carried in the retired list of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines. The name of a retiree who loses his Filipino
citizenship shall be removed from the retired list and his
retirement benefits terminated upon such loss.

The OSG agrees with petitioner that Section 27 of PD 1638,

as amended, is unconstitutional. The OSG argues that the
obligation imposed on petitioner to retain his Filipino
citizenship as a condition for him to remain in the AFP
retired list and receive his retirement benefit is contrary to

public policy and welfare, oppressive, discriminatory, and

violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. The
OSG argues that the retirement law is in the nature of a
contract between the government and its employees. The
OSG further argues that Section 27 of PD 1638, as
amended, discriminates against AFP retirees who have
changed their nationality.
We do not agree.
The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws
is
18
not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification. To
be reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on
substantial distinctions which make real differences (b)
must be germane to the purpose of the law (c) must not be
limited to existing conditions only
and (d) must apply
19
equally to each member of the class.
There is compliance with all these conditions. There is a
substantial difference between retirees who are citizens of
the Philippines and retirees who lost their Filipino
citizenship by naturalization in another country, such as
petitioner in the case before us. The constitutional right of
the state to require
all citizens to render personal and
20
military service necessar
_______________
18

Tiu v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 229 301 SCRA 278 (1999).

19

Beltran v. Secretary of Health, G.R. No. 133640, 25 November 2005,

476 SCRA 168.

20

Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

402

402

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

ily includes not only private citizens but also citizens who
have retired from military service. A retiree who had lost
his Filipino citizenship already renounced his allegiance to
the state. Thus, he may no longer be compelled by the state
to render compulsory military service when the need
arises. Petitioners loss of Filipino citizenship constitutes a
substantial distinction that distinguishes him from other
retirees who retain their Filipino citizenship. If the
groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions
that make real differences, one class may be treated and
21
regulated differently from another.

21

regulated differently from another.

22
Republic Act No. 7077 (RA 7077) affirmed the
constitutional right of the state to a Citizen Armed Forces.
Section 11 of RA 7077 provides that citizen soldiers or
reservists include exservicemen and retired officers of the
AFP. Hence, even when a retiree is no longer in the active
service, he is still a part of the Citizen Armed Forces. Thus,
we do not find the requirement imposed by Section 27 of
PD 1638, as amended, oppressive, discriminatory, or
contrary to public policy. The state has the right to impose
a reasonable condition that is necessary for national
defense. To rule otherwise would be detrimental to the
interest of the state.
There was no denial of due process in this case. When
petitioner lost his Filipino citizenship, the AFP had no
choice but to stop his monthly pension in accordance with
Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended. Petitioner had the
opportunity to con
_______________
Sec. 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment
thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render
personal, military, or civil service.
21

Tiu v. Court of Appeals, supra note 18.

22

An

Act

Providing

for

the

Development,

Administration,

Organization, Training, Maintenance and Utilization of the Citizen Armed

Forces of the Philippines and For Other Purposes. Approved on 27 June
1991.
403

VOL. 523, JUNE 7, 2007

403

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit

test the termination of his pension when he requested for

reconsideration of the removal of his name from the list of
retirees and the termination of his pension. The Judge
Advocate General denied the request pursuant to Section
27 of PD 1638, as amended.
Petitioner argues that he can reacquire
his Filipino
23
citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (RA 9225), in
which case he will still be considered a naturalborn

Filipino. However, petitioner alleges that if he reacquires

his Filipino citizenship under RA 9225, he will still not be
entitled to his pension because of its prior termination.
This situation is speculative. In the first place, petitioner
has not shown that he has any intention of reacquiring, or
has done anything to reacquire, his Filipino citizenship.
Secondly, in response to the request for opinion of then
AFP Chief of Staff, General Efren L. Abu, the Department
of Justice (DOJ) issued DOJ Opinion No. 12, series of 2005,
dated 19 January 2005, thus:
[T]he AFP uniformed personnel retirees, having reacquired
Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 and its IRR, are
entitled to pension and gratuity benefits reckoned from the date
they have taken their oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines. It goes without saying that these retirees have no
right to receive such pension benefits during the time that they
have ceased to be Filipinos pursuant to the aforequoted P.D. No.
1638, as amended, and any
payment made to them should be
24
returned to the AFP. x x x.

Hence, petitioner has other recourse if he desires to

continue receiving his monthly pension. Just recently, in
AASJS MemberHector
Gumangan Calilung v. Simeon
25
Datumanong, this Court upheld the constitutionality of
RA 9225. If petitioner reacquires his Filipino citizenship,
he will even
_______________
23

Citizenship Retention and ReAcquisition Act of 2003.

24

Rollo, pp. 6364.

25

G.R. No. 160869, 11 May 2007, 523 SCRA 108.

404

404

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Parreo vs. Commission on Audit
26

recover his
naturalborn citizenship. In Tabasa v. Court of
27
Appeals, this Court reiterated that [t]he repatriation of
the former Filipino will allow him to recover his natural
born citizenship x x x.
Petitioner will be entitled to receive his monthly pension
should he reacquire his Filipino citizenship since he will

again be entitled to the benefits and privileges of Filipino

citizenship reckoned from the time of his reacquisition of
Filipino citizenship. There is no legal obstacle to the
resumption of his retirement benefits from the time he
complies again with the condition of the law, that is, he can
receive his retirement benefits provided he is a Filipino
citizen.
We acknowledge the service rendered to the country by
petitioner and those similarly situated. However, petitioner
failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality of
Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended. Unless the provision is
amended or repealed in the future, the AFP has to apply
Section 27 of PD 1638, as amended.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM
the 9 January 2003 Decision and 13 January 2004
Resolution of the Commission on Audit.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Actg. C.J.), YnaresSantiago,
SandovalGutierrez, AustriaMartinez, Corona, Azcuna,
Tinga, ChicoNazario, Garcia and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Puno (C.J.), On Official Leave.
CarpioMorales, J., On Leave.
_______________
26

Bengson III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.

142840, 7 May 2001, 357 SCRA 545.

27

G.R. No. 125793, 29 August 2006, 500 SCRA 9.

405

VOL. 523, JUNE 7, 2007

405

Duvaz Corporation vs. Export and Industry Bank

Nachura, J., No Part. Filed pleading as Solicitor

General.
Petition dismissed, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.By the terms of E.O. No. 79, qualified reserve
officers have the same status as regular commissioned
officers of the AFP, who are unquestionably compulsory
members of the GSIS. (Government Service Insurance
System vs. Commission on Audit, 301 SCRA 731 [1999])

The Philippine National Police is separate and distinct

from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. (Manalo vs.
Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239 [1999])
o0o

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.