Ligot v. Mathay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Benjamin T. Ligot served as a Congressman for three consecutive four-year terms, from December 30, 1957, to December 30, 1969. During his second term, Republic Act No. 4134 was enacted, increasing the salaries of members of Congress from P7,200.00 to P32,000.00 per annum, effective July 1, 1964. However, this increase was expressly made subject to the constitutional provision that it would only take effect upon the expiration of the full term of all members of Congress who approved it. Procedural History: Petitioner lost his bid for a fourth term in the 1969 elections, and his term expired on December 30, 1969. He filed a claim for retirement gratuity under Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by Republic Act 4968, seeking computation based on the increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum. The House of Representatives issued a warrant for P122,429.86 based on this increased salary. However, respondent Auditor Velasco requested the return of the warrant for recomputation, citing the Auditor General's adverse decision on a similar claim by ex-Congressman Melanio T. Singson. Petitioner's request for reconsideration was denied, and his appeal to the Office of the President was also dismissed. The Petition: Petitioner appealed the adverse decision of the Auditor General, arguing that his retirement gratuity should be computed on the basis of the P32,000.00 per annum salary, as this was the rate provided by law at the time of his retirement, even though he was constitutionally prohibited from receiving it during his term.
Issue(s)
Whether the retirement gratuity of a Congressman whose term expired on December 30, 1969, should be computed based on the increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum under Republic Act 4134, or the salary of P7,200.00 per annum actually received during his term. Whether computing the retirement gratuity on the basis of the increased salary, which the petitioner was constitutionally prohibited from receiving during his term, would constitute a violation of the constitutional prohibition against increasing compensation during the term of office.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the Auditor-General's decision is affirmed. The retirement gratuity of petitioner Benjamin T. Ligot is to be computed based on the salary of P7,200.00 per annum, which he legally received during his term of office.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the retirement gratuity should be computed based on the increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum or the salary of P7,200.00 per annum: The Court held that the "rate of pay as provided by law" for elected officials, as stipulated in the retirement law, refers to the compensation they legally received during their term of office. Since Republic Act 4134's salary increase to P32,000.00 per annum was constitutionally prohibited from taking effect until December 30, 1969, for members of Congress whose terms expired on that date, the applicable rate for petitioner Ligot was P7,200.00 per annum. To compute the gratuity based on the P32,000.00 rate would be to grant benefits based on a salary that was legally unavailable to him during his incumbency. The Court emphasized that the "highest rate received" for employees and the "rates of pay as provided by law" for elected officials in the retirement statute are distinct and must be interpreted in light of constitutional limitations. On the issue of whether computing the retirement gratuity on the basis of the increased salary would violate the constitutional prohibition against increased compensation during the term of office: The Court ruled that granting retirement gratuity based on the P32,000.00 salary would be a "subtle way of going around the constitutional prohibition and increasing in effect their compensation during their term of office and of doing indirectly what could not be done directly." The Court cited its previous ruling in Philconsa vs. Mathay which held that the increased compensation under Republic Act No. 4134 was not operative until December 30, 1969, when the full term of all members of Congress who approved the increase had expired, in accordance with Article VI, Section 14 of the 1935 Constitution. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle established in Philconsa vs. Jimenez that retirement benefits are a form of compensation and emolument, and thus fall within the purview of the constitutional provision limiting such compensation. Allowing the computation on the higher rate would effectively provide prohibited emoluments, defying logic and contravening the Constitution.
Main Doctrine
Retirement gratuity for elected officials must be based on the salary rate legally received during their term of office, and cannot be computed on the basis of a salary increase that was constitutionally prohibited during their incumbency, even if such increase became legally operative after their term expired.