Chua v. Civil Service Commission Case No. 60 G.R. No. 88979 (February 7, 1992) Chapter IV, Page 164, Footnote No.146
Facts: In line with the policy policy of streamlining streamlining and trimming the bureaucracy, R.A.6683 (2 December 1988) was enacted to provide for the early e arly retirement and voluntary separation of government employees as well as involuntary resignation to those those affected due to reorganization. Those who may avail were regular, regular, casual, temporary and emergency employees, with rendered service minimum of two years. Sec. 2. Coverage. Coverage. — This Act shall cover all appointive officials and employees of the Natio National nal Governm Government ent,, includ including ing governm government ent-ow -owned ned or control controlled led corpor corporati ations ons with with original charters, as well as the personnel of all local government units. The benefits authorized under this Act shall apply to all regular, temporary, casual and emergency employees, regardless of age, who have rendered at least a total of two (2) consecutive years of government service as of the date of separation. Uniformed personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines including those of the PC-INP are excluded from the coverage of this Act. Petitioner Lydia Chua was hired by the National Irrigation Administration Authoruty (NIA) for over 15 years as a coterminous employee of 4 successive NIA projects. Petitioner Lydia Chua, believing that she is qualified to avail of the benefits of the program, filed an application on January 30, 1989 with the NIA but was denied and later on with the CSC who was likewise denied. She was instead offered a separation benefits of ½ monthly basic pay for each year of service. a) co-terminous with the project — When the appointment is co-existent with the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made or subject to the availability ava ilability of funds for the same; Issue: Whether or not petitioner was entitled to avail of the early retirement benefit as a coterminous employee. Held: It was stated that a coterminous employee is a non-career civil servant like casual and emergency employees, because of that they are entitled to the same benefits as long as they complied with the requirements of the law, which in this case, was done by Linda Chua. On that note, the court cou rt believes that the denial of petitioner’s application for early retirement benefits by the NIA and CSC is unreasonable, unjustified and oppressive due to the fact that she is entitled to the benefits of the same law because she served the government not only for two (2) years which is the minimum requirement under the law but for fifteen (15) years. In four (4) governmental projects. Wherefore, the petition is granted.
FACTS: RA 6683 provided benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation as well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization. Section 2 covers those who are qualified: Sec. 2. Coverage. – This Act shall cover all appointive officials and employees of the National Government. The benefits authorized under this Act shall apply to all regular, temporary, casual and emergency employees, regardless of age, who have rendered at least a total of two (2) consecutive years of government service as of the date of separation…” Petitioner Lydia Chua, believing that she is qualified to avail of the benefits of the program, filed an application on January 30, 1989 with Respondent Administration, which, however, denied the same. Recourse by the petitioner to Respondent Commission yielded the same result. ISSUE: W/N Petitioner’s status as a co-terminus employee is excluded from the benefits of RA 6683 (Early Retirement Law). HELD: The petition is granted. The Early Retirement Law would violate the equal protection clause of the constitution if the Supreme Court were to sustain Respondent’s submission that the benefits of said law are to be denied a class of government employees who are similarly situated as those covered by the said law. The court applied the doctrine of necessary implication in deciding this case.
