G.R. No. A.M. No. 10-9-15-SC; February 12, 2013
RE: REQUEST OF (RET.) CHIEF JUSTICE ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN FOR RECOMPUTATION OF HIS CREDITABLE SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOMPUTING HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

FACTS

Upon his compulsory retirement in 2006, former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban was credited with only 11.15844 years of government service by the Office of Administrative Services (OAS). The OAS excluded his four-year service from January 1962 to December 1965, during which he served as Legal Counsel to the Department of Education (DepEd) and its Secretary, and as Consultant to the Board of National Education (BNE). The exclusion was based on the rule that consultancy under a “contract of services” is not considered government service for retirement purposes under the Omnibus Rules. Consequently, he did not meet the then 20-year requirement under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910 and received only a 5-year lump sum.
The legal landscape changed with the enactment of R.A. No. 9946 in 2010, which reduced the requisite length of service for full retirement benefits from 20 to 15 years. This prompted CJ Panganiban to request a recomputation of his creditable service to include the excluded four-year period, thereby potentially meeting the new 15-year threshold. In support, he submitted certifications from former Education Secretary Alejandro R. Roces and Retired Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, detailing his actual, full-time work and responsibilities during that period.

ISSUE

Whether the four-year service of former Chief Justice Panganiban as Legal Counsel and Consultant from 1962 to 1965 constitutes creditable government service for the purpose of recomputing his retirement benefits under R.A. No. 9946 .

RULING

Yes, the service is creditable. The Supreme Court, through Justice Perlas-Bernabe, granted the request. The Court emphasized that the determination of creditable service should focus on the substance and nature of the actual services rendered, not merely on the formal title or the absence of a plantilla position. The sworn statements established that CJ Panganiban performed multifarious, necessary, and desirable tasks for the DepEd and BNE, working daily on high-level policy matters and routine operational duties, for which he received regular government compensation.
The Court rejected the dissenting view that required a formal appointment to a specific, pre-defined position within the government organizational structure as a prerequisite. It noted that the old Administrative Code defined a government “employee” broadly as any person in government service, without requiring a specific job description. The Court found persuasive analogy in precedents where services in non-plantilla positions were credited, such as retired Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa’s service on a Supreme Court committee. The legal logic is that where an individual renders continuous, actual, and full-time service to a government agency under an official engagement and receives compensation, such service substantively constitutes government employment for retirement credit, especially when the intent of the retirement law is to reward public service. The reduction of the service requirement under R.A. No. 9946 further supports a liberal interpretation to fulfill the law’s beneficent purpose.