Allarde v. Commission on Audit
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rodolfo T. Allarde, a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge, received a monthly allowance of P4,000.00 from the Municipality of Muntinlupa during his incumbency. Upon his courtesy resignation and approval of his retirement under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) included a P240,000.00 lump sum representing five years of this monthly allowance in his retirement pay computation, to be charged to the municipality's funds. The Sangguniang Bayan of Muntinlupa subsequently appropriated this amount. Procedural History: The Metro Manila Authority denied the claim, citing prior Commission on Audit (COA) rulings that such allowances are expense items, not compensation. Petitioner filed his claim with the COA, which denied it on June 5, 1991. Reconsiderations were also denied by the COA on November 5, 1991, and January 27, 1992. The Petition: This petition for certiorari and/or mandamus seeks to annul the COA decisions denying the inclusion of the P4,000.00 monthly allowance in the computation of his retirement benefits.
Issue(s)
Whether the P4,000.00 monthly allowance received by the petitioner from the Municipality of Muntinlupa should be included in the computation of his retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Commission on Audit did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's claim.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the P4,000.00 monthly allowance should be included in retirement benefits: The Court held that the P4,000.00 monthly allowance received by the petitioner from the Municipality of Muntinlupa cannot be included in the computation of his retirement benefits. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438, clearly specifies that only the highest monthly salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, living, and representation allowances are to be included. The principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius applies, meaning what is not included is deemed excluded. The petitioner failed to prove that the allowance was for representation, living, or transportation. Instead, the sample voucher he used to claim the allowance indicated it was a reimbursement for expenses incurred while performing his duties, thereby signifying its reimbursable nature. The COA correctly observed that these allowances were non-commutable or reimbursable, unlike the commutable allowances that form part of remuneration. Letter of Instruction No. 1418, which authorizes local governments to pay additional allowances, limits the amount and does not provide that these allowances shall be treated as part of remuneration for retirement benefit computation. The use of the word "may" in the LOI signifies that the allowance is not a matter of right but dependent on the municipality's will, thus it should be treated as an honorarium or a voluntary donation, not integral compensation. Including such variable allowances would create inequality among judges based on the financial capacity of their respective municipalities.
Main Doctrine
Monthly allowances received by a judge from a local government unit, which are in the nature of reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing duties, are not considered compensation and therefore cannot be included in the computation of retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1438.