G.R. No. 191890; December 04, 2012
EVALYN I. FETALINO and AMADO M. CALDERON, Petitioners, MANUEL A. BARCELONA, JR., Petitioner-Intervenor, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Evalyn I. Fetalino and Amado M. Calderon were extended ad interim appointments as COMELEC Commissioners by President Fidel V. Ramos in February 1998 for a term of seven years. However, the Commission on Appointments did not act upon their appointments before Congress adjourned. Due to the constitutional ban on appointments, they were not reappointed and served only from February 16, 1998, to June 30, 1998. They later applied for retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1568, which grants a five-year lump sum gratuity to a COMELEC Chairman or member who retires “after completion of the term of office.”
The COMELEC initially approved their claims but later issued Resolution No. 8808, completely disapproving them. The COMELEC ruled that since the petitioners did not complete the full seven-year term but merely served a short tenure due to the expiration of their unconfirmed ad interim appointments, they did not “complete the term of office” as required by the law. Petitioner-intervenor Manuel A. Barcelona, Jr., who similarly did not complete his term, joined the petition.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners, whose ad interim appointments as COMELEC Commissioners expired without confirmation and who did not serve the full seven-year term, are entitled to the five-year lump sum retirement gratuity under R.A. No. 1568.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding COMELEC Resolution No. 8808. The legal logic centers on the statutory interpretation of the phrase “after completion of the term of office” in R.A. No. 1568. The Court distinguished between “term,” which is the fixed period for which an official is appointed (seven years for COMELEC Commissioners), and “tenure,” which is the actual period of service. The law’s clear intent is to grant the substantial gratuity as a reward for completing the entire fixed term. The expiration of an ad interim appointment due to non-confirmation results only in the end of one’s tenure, not the completion of the term. To rule otherwise would grant the full benefit for partial service, which would be unreasonable and contrary to the law’s plain meaning. The benefit is a special privilege conditioned upon the completion of the full term, a condition not met by the petitioners. The Court also noted that Barcelona’s petition was moot as he had already received a pro-rated gratuity.