G.R. No. 97419 July 3, 1992
GAUDENCIO T. CENA, petitioner, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, and THE HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, in her capacity as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gaudencio T. Cena entered government service on November 16, 1978. He held various positions, ultimately becoming Registrar of the Register of Deeds of Malabon, Metro Manila. He reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 on January 22, 1991, by which time he had rendered a total of 11 years, 9 months, and 6 days of government service. Before his 65th birthday, he requested an extension of service to complete the 15-year service requirement to be eligible for an old-age pension under Section 11(b) of P.D. 1146 (the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977). The Civil Service Commission (CSC), in its Resolution No. 90-681, initially denied his request. Upon motion for reconsideration, the CSC, citing CSC Memorandum Circular No. 27, s. 1990, allowed a one-year extension of service from January 22, 1991, to January 22, 1992. Petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration, seeking a longer extension to complete 15 years, was denied in CSC Resolution No. 91-101. Petitioner filed the instant petition, arguing the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion by limiting the extension to only one year instead of the approximately three years and three months needed to complete the 15-year requirement.

ISSUE

May a government employee who has reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years, but who has rendered only 11 years, 9 months, and 6 days of government service, be allowed to continue in the service to complete the 15-year service requirement to enable him to retire with the benefits of an old-age pension under Section 11(b) of the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that Section 11(b) of P.D. 1146 expressly provides that if an employee of sixty-five years of age has less than fifteen years of service, “he shall be allowed to continue in the service to complete the fifteen years.” This provision is qualified by the clause “Unless the service is extended by appropriate authorities,” which means the CSC, as the appropriate authority, must authorize the extension. However, the CSC’s power under the Administrative Code to act on “extension of service beyond retirement age” cannot be interpreted to authorize a limitation of that extension to only one year when such a limitation has no relation to the provision of the special law (P.D. 1146) it is supposed to implement. The Court ruled that statutes creating pension or retirement plans, being remedial in character, should be liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited. Limiting the extension to only one year would defeat the beneficial intent of the retirement law. Therefore, the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion in restricting the extension to one year via Memorandum Circular No. 27. Petitioner should be allowed to continue in service to complete the 15-year requirement.