G.R. No. L-12538; April 29, 1960
GAUDENCIO LACSON, petitioner-appellant, vs. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Gaudencio Lacson, a former Acting Department Manager and Administrative Officer of the National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO) with an annual salary of P7,200.00, was laid off on December 31, 1955, due to the reorganization of NAMARCO under Administrative Order No. 53 issued pursuant to Republic Act No. 1345 (the NAMARCO Law). He had been in government service since 1912. On February 6, 1956, he filed an application for retirement with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) under Commonwealth Act No. 186 , as amended by Republic Act No. 660 . His application was approved, and he received a total of P18,617.58 in retirement insurance benefits based on his length of service and age. Lacson also filed a claim with NAMARCO for a gratuity equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of government service under Section 18(b), paragraph (3) of Republic Act No. 1345 . The Auditor General denied this claim, ruling that the right to gratuity is alternative to retirement benefits under Commonwealth Act No. 186 , as amended. Lacson filed a petition for mandamus against the Auditor General, NAMARCO, and GSIS. He claimed he was unjustly laid off at age 61, depriving him of salary until the compulsory retirement age of 65 (totaling P22,220.00), and that he was entitled to a gratuity of P25,200.00 (one month’s salary per year of service, not limited to 12 months). Against GSIS, he alleged improper “actuarial deductions,” claiming his monthly annuity should have been P424.00 (if he retired at 65) instead of P362.00. He also sought moral damages and attorney’s fees. The respondents filed motions to dismiss, which the Court of First Instance of Manila granted, citing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. Lacson appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over Lacson’s appeal from the Auditor General’s decision denying his gratuity claim.
2. Whether Lacson’s petition stated a cause of action for:
a. Payment of salary for the period from his layoff until age 65.
b. Payment of gratuity under Republic Act No. 1345 in addition to retirement benefits received under Republic Act No. 660 .
c. Correction of alleged improper actuarial deductions by GSIS in computing his annuity.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal.
1. On Jurisdiction: The Court held that an appeal from the decision of the Auditor General should have been made directly to the Supreme Court within 30 days from notice, pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 327 and Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The Court of First Instance therefore lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
2. On Failure to State a Cause of Action:
a. Claim for Salary: Lacson’s claim for salary for the period from his layoff until age 65 could not be allowed because, instead of contesting the legality of his separation, he voluntarily applied for and received retirement insurance benefits.
b. Claim for Gratuity: The petition stated no cause of action for gratuity. Under the second paragraph of Section 26 of Republic Act No. 660 , the enjoyment of retirement insurance benefits excludes the right to gratuity. Furthermore, Section 18(b), paragraph (3) of Republic Act No. 1345 provides that officials and employees entitled to retire under Republic Act No. 660 are not entitled to gratuity; gratuity is only for those not retired under said laws. By receiving retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 660 , Lacson voluntarily divested himself of any right to gratuity.
c. Claim Against GSIS: The charge of improper actuarial deductions against GSIS was without basis. Lacson admitted he was 61 at retirement, and he did not question that the amounts paid were correctly computed based on his age and length of service at that time. His claim that his annuity should be based on the age of 65 was preposterous.
The appeal was dismissed, with costs against Lacson.