Ataiza: Chua vs.

CSC

Facts:

In line with the policy of streamlining and trimming the bureaucracy, R.A. 6683 (2 December 1988) was
enacted to provide for the early retirement and voluntary separation of government employees as well as
involuntary resignation to those affected due to reorganization. Those who may avail were regular, casual,
temporary and emergency employees, with rendered service minimum of two years.
Sec. 2. Coverage. – This Act shall cover all appointive officials and employees of the National
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, as well as
the personnel of all local government units. The benefits authorized under this Act shall apply to all
regular, temporary, casual and emergency employees, regardless of age, who have rendered at least a
total of two (2) consecutive years of government service as of the date of separation. Uniformed
personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines including those of the PC-INP are excluded from the
coverage of this Act.

Petitioner Lydia Chua was hired by the National Irrigation Administration Authority (NIA) for over 15 years as
a coterminous employee of 4 successive NIA projects. Petitioner Lydia Chua, believing that she is qualified to
avail of the benefits of the program, filed an application on January 30. 1989 with the NIA but was denied and
later on with the CSC who was likewise denied. She was instead offered a separation benefits of 1/22 monthly
basic pay for each year of service.
a) Co-terminous with the project – When the appointment is co-existent with the duration of a particular
project for which purpose employment was made or subject to the availability of funds for the same;

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was entitled to avail of the early retirement benefits as a coterminous employee?

Held:
It was stated that a coterminous employee is a non-career civil servant like casual and emergency employees,
because of that they are entitled to the same benefits as long as they complied with the requirements of the law
which in this case, was done by Linda Chua. On that note, the court believes that the denial of petitioner’s
application for early retirement benefits by the NIA and CSC is unreasonable, unjustified and oppressive due to
the fact that she is entitled to the benefits of the same law because she served the government not only for two
(2) years which is the minimum requirement under the law but for fifteen (15) years in four (4) governmental
projects.

Wherefore, the petition is granted.

Statutory Construction: Doctrine of Necessary Implication which means what is implied is that much of what
is expressed and which includes all provisions.
Extrinsic Aid: Legislative History of the Statute