G.R. No. L-24842 May 31, 1988
Republic of the Philippines, Represented by the Bureau of Building and Real Property Management, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Alejandro Cardenas, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The Republic filed an ejectment case against Alejandro Cardenas, a retired Chief of the Office of Telecommunications, for non-payment of rentals for a government cottage (Cottage No. 80) he occupied near his workplace. Cardenas defended his occupation by invoking Section 7-11(23) of Commonwealth Act No. 246 , which grants free quarters and light to any operator or engineman of the Bureau of Telecommunications assigned to a radio station occupying a government-owned building. He argued this privilege applied to him as the chief operator. Both the Municipal Court and the Court of First Instance of Baguio dismissed the complaint, upholding Cardenas’s entitlement to the benefit.
During the Supreme Court’s review, it was revealed that Cardenas had since retired and died. His counsel, who is also his son, Atty. Benjamin Cardenas, manifested that the case had become moot. However, the Solicitor General countered, stating that the deceased’s heirs, including Atty. Cardenas, continued to occupy the property, thereby necessitating a resolution of the underlying legal issue.

ISSUE

Whether the right to free quarters and light under Commonwealth Act No. 246 , personal to a qualified government employee, extends to and may be availed of by his surviving heirs after his retirement and death.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the lower courts’ decision. It first affirmed that Alejandro Cardenas, during his active service as Chief and operator of the Office of Telecommunications, was indeed entitled to the privilege of free quarters and light under CA No. 246 . The legal logic is that the clear text of the law grants this benefit to an “operator or engineman… assigned to any radio station occupying a government-owned building.” The Court recognized the rationale for this privilege: the nature of the duties requires the employee’s constant availability. Therefore, the initial dismissal of the ejectment suit for the period of his active service was correct.
However, the Court ruled definitively that this statutory privilege is strictly personal to the employee by virtue of his office. It is a non-transferable incident of public service, not a property right that forms part of the estate. Consequently, the right terminated absolutely upon Cardenas’s retirement from government service. It cannot be inherited by, or extended to, his surviving heirs. Their continued occupation of the government cottage after his retirement was therefore without legal basis. The Court ordered the heirs and representatives to vacate the premises and to pay determined rentals accruing from the time of Cardenas’s retirement up to their actual vacation. The case was remanded to the trial court for the computation of these accrued rentals.