GR 240778; (June, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 240778, June 30, 2020
ROLANDO S. GREGORIO, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Rolando S. Gregorio, a Chief of Mission Class II and former Consul General of the Philippine Consulate General (PCG) in Honolulu, Hawaii, retired compulsorily on April 17, 2004, at age 65. His service was extended four times upon request, the last covering November 1 to December 31, 2004, as per Assignment Order No. 42-04 issued by DFA Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, which stated “with no further extension.” After December 31, 2004, petitioner claimed he continued to serve as Consul General from January 1, 2005, onward. However, in a Letter dated March 22, 2005, the DFA designated Consul Eva G. Betita as Acting Head of Post of Honolulu effective January 1, 2005. On April 21, 2005, Secretary Romulo recommended to the President the extension of petitioner’s service until June 30, 2005. This was approved by the Executive Secretary via Memorandum dated May 19, 2005, received by the DFA on May 23, 2005, stating extension “until June 30, 2005 or until the arrival of his successor, whichever is earlier.” On June 10, 2005, Secretary Romulo instructed petitioner to return to the Home Office by June 13, 2005, and to file leaves for absences from January 2005. Almost ten years later, on July 15, 2015, petitioner filed Petitions for Money Claim before the COA seeking payment of salary, additional compensation, overseas allowance, and living quarters allowance for January 1 to June 17, 2005, totaling P2,041,147.20. The COA denied the claims, ruling that petitioner could not assume or continue office without prior presidential authority under Executive Order No. 136, that the extension request was beyond the maximum one-year period from his retirement, and that no proof of exemplary meritorious reasons or actual services rendered was presented. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which was denied.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner is entitled to payment of his money claims for salary and allowances for the period January 1 to June 17, 2005.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It held that petitioner is entitled to payment only for the period from January 1 to March 31, 2005. The Court found that petitioner’s service was effectively extended until March 31, 2005, based on the DFA’s own actions: the designation of Consul Betita as Acting Head of Post was dated March 22, 2005, and received only on April 1, 2005, indicating petitioner continued in a hold-over capacity until then. The Court noted that the DFA’s October 18, 2005 Memorandum requested payment for petitioner’s approved extension from January 1 to June 30, 2005, and included an “Approved Leave of Absence for the period from 01 April 2005 to 30 June 2005,” implying his active service ended on March 31, 2005. The principle of quantum meruit supported compensation for services actually rendered during this period to prevent unjust enrichment. However, petitioner was not entitled to compensation beyond March 31, 2005, as his extension was approved only on May 19, 2005, and was subject to the condition “until the arrival of his successor,” which occurred when he was recalled on June 10, 2005. The COA Decision and Resolution were set aside, and the case was remanded to the COA for computation of petitioner’s money claim for January 1 to March 31, 2005.