Scribd
Upload
82 views

Tantuico v. Domingo

Petitioner applied for retirement clearance which he received. However, respondent Chairman refused to release the remaining half of petitioner's retirement benefits, a purely ministerial act. The issue is whether the withholding of half of petitioner's retirement benefits is valid. The court ruled that retirement laws are interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree to provide for their sustenance. It ordered respondent Chairman to pay petitioner's retirement benefits in full in accordance with these laws.

Uploaded by

Carissa Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views

Tantuico v. Domingo

Petitioner applied for retirement clearance which he received. However, respondent Chairman refused to release the remaining half of petitioner's retirement benefits, a purely ministerial act. The issue is whether the withholding of half of petitioner's retirement benefits is valid. The court ruled that retirement laws are interpreted liberally in favor of the retiree to provide for their sustenance. It ordered respondent Chairman to pay petitioner's retirement benefits in full in accordance with these laws.

Uploaded by

Carissa Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TANTUICO v.

DOMINGO of his retirement benefits — a purely ministerial act

February 28, 1994 | Quiason, J. | Implications


ISSUE/s:

1. WoN the withholding of one-half of petitioner’s retirement benefits is valid –


PETITIONER: FRANCISCO TANTUICO No.

RESPONDENTS: HON. EUFEMIO DOMINGO, ESTELITO SALVADOR, MARGARITO


SILOT, etc. RULING: Petition was granted insofar as it seeks to compel respondent Chairman of the
COA to pay petitioner’s retirement benefits in full and his monthly pensions.

SUMMARY: Petitioner applied for clearance from all money, property and other
accountabilities in preparation for his retirement. He obtained the clearance applied RATIO:
for. The clearance had all the required signatures and bore a certification that
petitioner was “cleared from money, property and/or other accountabilities by this 1. Under Section 4 of R.A. No. 1568 (An Act to Provide Life Pension to the Auditor
Commission”. Petitioner argues that notwithstanding the clearances previously General and the Chairman or Any Member of the Commission of Elections), the
issued (by COA), and respondent Chairman’s certification that petitioner had been benefits granted by said law to the Auditor General and the Chairman and
cleared of money and property accountability, respondent Chairman still refuses to Members of the Commission on Elections shall not be subject to garnishment,
release the remaining half of his retirement benefits — a purely ministerial act. levy or execution. Likewise, under Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended, the
benefits granted thereunder “shall not be subject, among others, to attachment,
garnishment, levy or other processes.”

DOCTRINE:
2. Well settled is the rule that retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor of
the retiree because the intention is to provide for the retiree’s sustenance and
Well settled is the rule that retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the comfort, when he is no longer capable of earning his livelihood.
retiree because the intention is to provide for the retiree’s sustenance and comfort,
when he is no longer capable of earning his livelihood.

FACTS:

1. Petitioner was appointed Chairman of the Commission on Audit to serve a term


of 7 years.

2. Petitioner applied for clearance from all money, property and other
accountabilities in preparation for his retirement. He obtained the clearance
applied for. The clearance had all the required signatures and bore a
certification that petitioner was “cleared from money, property and/or other
accountabilities by this Commission”. Petitioner argues that notwithstanding
the clearances previously issued (by COA), and respondent Chairman’s
certification that petitioner had been cleared of money and property
accountability, respondent Chairman still refuses to release the remaining half

You might also like