Santos v.

Court of Appeals

Fact

Santos was an appointed judge of the MeTC (Metropolitan Trial Court) of Quezon City,
retired in 1992 and acquired his retirement gratuity under RA 910.

In 1992, Santos optionally retired from the Judiciary under R.A. No. 910, and received his
retirement gratuity for his entire years in the government service; and regularly receiving a
monthly pension.

In 1993, petitioner entered again in the government service as a Director of the Traffic
Operation Center of the MMDA. And again, in 1996, exercised his option to be separated
from the service, and was therefore entitled to separation benefits equivalent to one and
one-fourth (1) monthly salary for every year of service as provided under Section 11 of the
MMDA Law.

However, Santos asserted that all the years of his government service, including those
years in the Judiciary, should be credited in the computation of his separation benefits,
and not just the year of his service to MMDA.

He explained that under the second paragraph of Section 8 of Article IX-B of the
Constitution, which provides:

Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect

compensation.

Meaning to say, there could be no double compensation as regards to his separation pay in
judiciary.

Issue

Whether the petitioners separation benefit be computed starting from the year of his
service in judiciary or from the year of his service in MMDA

Held

The separation benefits only covered his years of service in MMDA.

Upon his retirement from his office as a Judge, petitioner has already closed a chapter of his
government service. The State has already shown its gratitude by paying his retirement
benefits.

Now, an another chapter of petitioners government service, the state again shows its
gratitude to petitioner by awarding him separation pay for his services as a director of the
MMDA. Equity dictates that he should no longer be allowed to receive further gratuity for his
previous year of service in judiciary, in the guise of separation pay.

Petitioner, at that time was continually receiving gratuity for his years of service as a MeTC
Judge. So, in determining petitioners separation pay, his separation pay should be solely
confined to his services in the MMA.

The second paragraph of Section 8 of Article IX-B of the Constitution, simply means that a
retiree receiving pension or gratuity can continue to receive such pension or gratuity even if
he accepts another government position to which another compensation is attached.