Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    Allarde vs. Commission On Audit Et Al

    Uploaded by

    EJ Padua
    1) Rodolfo Allarde, a former judge, applied for retirement benefits which included a lump sum representing his monthly allowance from the Municipality of Muntinlupa. 2) The Commission on Audit denied this additional retirement benefit, citing a ruling that such allowances should not be included in retirement calculations. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the Commission on Audit's decision, finding the law clearly limits retirement calculations to salary and certain enumerated allowances, excluding other allowances like what Allarde received from Muntinlupa Municipality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Allarde vs. Commission On Audit Et Al

    Uploaded by

    EJ Padua
    58 views1 page
    1) Rodolfo Allarde, a former judge, applied for retirement benefits which included a lump sum representing his monthly allowance from the Municipality of Muntinlupa. 2) The Commission on Audit denied this additional retirement benefit, citing a ruling that such allowances should not be included in retirement calculations. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the Commission on Audit's decision, finding the law clearly limits retirement calculations to salary and certain enumerated allowances, excluding other allowances like what Allarde received from Muntinlupa Municipality.

    Original Description:

    Allarde vs. Commission on Audit Et Al

    Original Title

    Allarde vs. Commission on Audit Et Al

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Rodolfo Allarde, a former judge, applied for retirement benefits which included a lump sum representing his monthly allowance from the Municipality of Muntinlupa. 2) The Commission on Audit denied this additional retirement benefit, citing a ruling that such allowances should not be included in retirement calculations. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the Commission on Audit's decision, finding the law clearly limits retirement calculations to salary and certain enumerated allowances, excluding other allowances like what Allarde received from Muntinlupa Municipality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    58 views1 page

    Allarde vs. Commission On Audit Et Al

    Uploaded by

    EJ Padua
    1) Rodolfo Allarde, a former judge, applied for retirement benefits which included a lump sum representing his monthly allowance from the Municipality of Muntinlupa. 2) The Commission on Audit denied this additional retirement benefit, citing a ruling that such allowances should not be included in retirement calculations. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the Commission on Audit's decision, finding the law clearly limits retirement calculations to salary and certain enumerated allowances, excluding other allowances like what Allarde received from Muntinlupa Municipality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Allarde vs.

    Commission on Audit et al
    G.R. No. 103578
    January 29, 1993
    Griño-Aquino, J.

    FACTS:
    Rodolfo T. Allarde, a former judge, applied for re�rement under Republic Act No. 910, which was approved. The
    dispute arose when the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) included a lump sum represen�ng his
    allowance from the Municipality of Mun�nlupa in his re�rement pay. The Municipality had allocated this amount
    for him through a resolu�on.

    However, the Metro Manila Authority denied this addi�onal re�rement benefit, ci�ng a ruling by the Commission
    on Audit (COA) sta�ng that such allowances should not be considered as part of re�rement benefit calcula�ons.

    Allarde filed a claim with the COA, but it was denied. He sought reconsidera�on, but the COA upheld its denial.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the monthly allowance that the pe��oner had been receiving from the Municipality of Mun�nlupa
    should be included in the computa�on of his re�rement benefits under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by
    Presiden�al Decree No. 1438.

    RULING:
    No. It is an elementary principle of statutory construc�on that where the words and phrases of a statute are not
    obscure or ambiguous, the meaning and inten�on of the legislature should be determined from the language
    employed, and where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for construc�on.

    Accordingly, the provisions of Sec�on 3, P.D. No. 1438, which are clear and unambiguous, should be given their
    plain and natural meaning. Inasmuch as the law limits the computa�on of the lump sum of 5 years' gratuity to "the
    highest monthly salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transporta�on, living and representa�on allowances
    that the judge was receiving on the date of his re�rement," it is understood that other allowances are excluded.
    Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

    Finding no grave abuse of discre�on in the decision of the Commission on Audit, the pe��on for review is hereby
    DISMISSED.

    You might also like