Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. 11238-Ret. 2015-08-18	IN RE: EXPIRATION OF FIXED TERM OF OFFICE OF ATTY. SAADUDDIN A. ALAUYA VELASCO JR., J.
Time and again, the Court has followed the practice of liberal treatment in passing upon retirement issues and claims,[21] particularly of judges and justices, obviously in keeping with the beneficial intendment[22] of retirement laws which is to reward satisfactory past services and at the same time provide the retiree with the means to support himself and his family in his remaining years.[23] In the recent case of Re: Application for Survivorship Pension Benefits under [RA] No. 9946 of Mrs. Pacita A. Gruba,[24] the Court restated the principle underlying such benign interpretation in favor of retired personnel, thus: On several occasions, this Court has liberally interpreted retirement laws in keeping with its purpose. In Government Service Insurance System v. De Leon:
	GR NO. 168964 2006-01-23	BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS v. COA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
x x x we are of the opinion that the exemption should be liberally construed in favor of the pensioner. Pension in this case is a bounty flowing from the graciousness of the Government intended to reward past services and, at the same time, to provide the pensioner with the means with which to support himself and his family. Unless otherwise clearly provided, the pension should inure wholly to the benefit of the pensioner x x x. The above ruling was reiterated in Tantuico, Jr. v. Domingo, [17] and Government Service Insurance System v. Commission on Audit, [18] where the Court held that benefits under retirement laws cannot be withheld regardless of the employee's monetary liability to the government. Retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the retiree because the intention is to provide for the retiree's sustenance and comfort when he is no longer capable of earning his livelihood. [19]
	GR No. 138381 2004-11-10	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
The above ruling was reiterated in Tantuico, Jr. v. Domingo,[24] where the Court similarly declared that benefits under retirement laws cannot be withheld regardless of the petitioner's monetary liability to the government.