G.R. No. RTJ-04-1868. August 13, 2004.
RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE TITO G. GUSTILO THAT THE SECOND 25% GRANT OF THE SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR JUDGES BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

FACTS

Judge Tito G. Gustilo of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City was set for compulsory retirement on September 29, 2004. Republic Act No. 9227 granted a Special Allowance for judges equivalent to 100% of their basic salary, to be implemented in four annual tranches of 25% each, starting November 11, 2003. The first 25% tranche had been implemented. Judge Gustilo requested that the second 25% tranche, scheduled for implementation on November 11, 2004, be included in the computation of his retirement benefits, as his retirement date was merely one month and twelve days prior. He invoked the Court’s liberal policy in granting benefits to judges, citing past instances where retirees in October received the December 13th-month pay. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended granting his request, citing his exemplary service record.

ISSUE

Whether the second tranche of the Special Allowance under R.A. No. 9227 , which was not yet implemented at the time of his retirement, can be included in the computation of Judge Gustilo’s retirement benefits.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the request. The ruling is anchored on the clear and unambiguous language of the law. Section 5 of R.A. No. 9227 explicitly states that for retirement computation, “only the allowances actually received and the tranche or tranches of the special allowance already implemented and received… at the date of their retirement, shall be included.” The Court’s implementing Guidelines reiterated this condition. Since the second 25% tranche was to take effect only on November 11, 2004, it was neither “actually received” nor “already implemented” by Judge Gustilo’s retirement date of September 29, 2004. The Court emphasized that where the law is clear, its function is simple application, not interpretation or circumvention. Legislative intent, as revealed in the Bicameral Conference Committee deliberations, confirmed the condition of actual receipt. The Court acknowledged Judge Gustilo’s distinguished service but held that sympathy or equity cannot override the explicit mandate of the law. The grant is contingent upon the availability of a specific funding source, and premature inclusion would violate the statutory condition and create an inequitable distinction among retirees.