Lacson v. Auditor General
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Gaudencio Lacson, a former Acting Department Manager and Administrative Officer of the National Marketing Corporation (NAMARCO), was laid off on December 31, 1955, due to a reorganization. He had served in government since 1912. Lacson applied for and received retirement insurance benefits from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) totaling P18,617.58. Subsequently, he filed a claim with NAMARCO for gratuity, equivalent to one month's salary for each year of service, as provided by Republic Act No. 1345. This claim was denied by the Auditor General, who ruled that the right to gratuity was alternative to retirement benefits. 2. Procedural History: Following the denial of his gratuity claim by the Auditor General, Gaudencio Lacson filed a petition for mandamus against the Auditor General, NAMARCO, and the GSIS in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The respondents filed separate motions to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The trial court granted these motions and dismissed the petition. Lacson appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Lacson's petition for mandamus sought to compel the payment of gratuity and alleged he was unjustly laid off, deprived of salary until compulsory retirement, and entitled to P25,200.00 in gratuity. He also claimed his right to gratuity was not limited to 12 months and that such a limitation was unconstitutional. Furthermore, he alleged illegal actuarial deductions by the GSIS, claiming his annuity should have been higher. The appeal to the Supreme Court was made under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the dismissal order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to hear a petition for mandamus that effectively appeals a decision of the Auditor General. Whether a retired employee who has received retirement insurance benefits under Republic Act No. 660 may still claim back salaries for the period between his layoff and his compulsory retirement age. Whether an employee separated due to reorganization is entitled to both retirement insurance benefits and the gratuity provided under Section 18(b) of Republic Act No. 1345.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, holding that the appeal was without merit. The Court found that the petition stated no cause of action and that the lower court correctly dismissed it.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court of First Instance lacks jurisdiction over cases appealing the decision of the Auditor General involving private persons. Under Commonwealth Act No. 327 and Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, such decisions must be appealed directly to the Supreme Court within thirty days. The law distinguishes between cases involving executive departments, which are appealed to the President, and those involving private entities, which fall under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. As Lacson sought to overturn the Auditor General's denial of his claim, his recourse was a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, not a mandamus petition in the CFI. Consequently, the procedural vehicle chosen by the appellant was incorrect, justifying the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. On Issue 2: There is no cause of action for the recovery of back salaries when an employee has voluntarily accepted retirement benefits. Instead of contesting the legality of his separation from NAMARCO at the time of the reorganization, Lacson applied for and received retirement insurance benefits. By electing to retire and accepting the proceeds from the GSIS, he is deemed to have waived his right to challenge the layoff. Therefore, his claim for the salary he would have received had he reached the age of 65 is legally untenable. The Court emphasized that a voluntary act of retirement precludes a later claim for illegal dismissal or lost wages. On Issue 3: The claim for gratuity is barred because retirement benefits and reorganization gratuity are mutually exclusive under the law. Section 18(b), par. 3 of Republic Act No. 1345 provides that those entitled to retire under Republic Act No. 660 shall be retired accordingly, while those not so entitled shall receive a lump sum gratuity. Since Lacson qualified for and received retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 660, he is explicitly excluded from the gratuity provision. This is consistent with the Court's ruling in Gabriel v. Government Service Insurance System (103 Phil., 651), which held that the enjoyment of retirement insurance benefits excludes gratuity. The Court also dismissed his claim regarding 'actuarial deductions' as preposterous, as he was admittedly only 61 at the time of retirement and not 65.
Main Doctrine
A claimant who accepts retirement insurance benefits under Republic Act No. 660 is deemed to have divested himself of any right to claim gratuity under Republic Act No. 1345, as the enjoyment of one precludes the other.