Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GR 191890 Fetalino v. Comelec 04 Dec 2012
GR 191890 Fetalino v. Comelec 04 Dec 2012
CASTILLO, E.G.
BRION, J.:
I. FACTS
FEB 10 1998 – Pres. Ramos extended an interim appointment to the petitioners as Comelec Commissioners,
each for a 7 year term.
FEB 21 1998 – Pres. Ramos renewed the petitioners’ ad interim appointments for the same position. Congress
however, adjourned before the Commission on Appointments can act on their appointments. Constitutional
ban presidential appointments later took effect and the petitioners were not reappointed, thus, petitioners
only served as Commissioners for more than 4 months, from Feb 16 1998 to June 30 1998.
MAR 15 2005 – petitioners applied for retirement benefits and monthly pension pursuant to RA 1568, which
COMELEC initially approved on Resolution 06-1369 dated DEC 11 2006
FEB 6 2007 – issued Resolution 07-0202 granting the petitioners a prorated pension
OCT 5 2007 – petitioners asked for a re-computation of the retirement pay on ground that RA 1568 does not
cover pro-rated computation.
MAR 30 2010 – Resolution 8808, COMELEC, through its Law Department’s study, completely disapproved the
petitioner’s lump sum benefit claim under RA 1568:
o Of the 4 modes by which a Chairman on Commissioner shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit, only
the first instance (completion of term) is pertinent in this case. It is clear that the non-confirmation
and non-renewal of appointment is not a case of resignation, incapacity, or death.
o Can it be considered as completion of one’s term? No. RA 1568 meant a completion of term and not
expiration of term, which the latter is the case for the petitioners.
Petitioners and Barcelona sought the nullification of Resolution 8808 via a petition for certiorari, with the
following arguments:
o Non-renewal of their interim appointments by the Commission on Appointments until Congress
adjourned qualifies as retirement under the law and thus entitling them to the full benefit
o Resolution 06-1369 is already final and executory and cannot be modified by the COMELEC
o They now have vested rights due to the finality of Resolution 06-1369
Petitioners pray for a liberal interpretation of RA 1568. That the involuntary termination of their interim
appointment should be recognized by the Court as retirement as was the case in Ortiz v. COMELEC. That the
involuntary curtailment of Ortiz’s term be deemed as completion of his term so that he be considered retired.
Petitioners also bewail the lack of notice and hearing in the issuance of Resolution 8808
JUL 22, 2010 – Respondents filed its comment through the OSG, praying for the dismissal of the petition on
the following grounds:
o Petitioners’ reliance on the finality of Resolution 06-1369 is misplaced as this is not the final decision
contemplated by COMELEC Rules of Procedure Sec 13 Rule 18. Also, that estoppel does not lie against
the COMELEC since erroneous application and enforcement of the law does not stop the Government
from making subsequent correction of its errors.
o COMELEC reiterates that petitioners are not considered retired for they have not completed the term
office. Respondents draw the Court’s attention to the case of Matibag v. Benipayo where the Court
categorically ruled that interim appointments that lapsed due to the inaction of the Commission on
Appointments does not constitute a term of office
o That petitioners have no vested rights since RA 1568 is gratuity in nature and are not similar to
pension plans where employee participation is mandatory so that they acquire vested rights in
pension as aprt of their compensation. Without vested right, respondent concludes that the
petitioners were not deprived of their property without due process of law.
II. ISSUE
Whether or not can the petitioners apply for the liberal interpretation of RA 1568
III. RULING – DISMISS the petition for certiorari filed by petitioners for lack of merit. DENY Bercelona, Jr’s
petition for intervention for lack of merit
Barcelona’s petition for intervention is misdirected. COMELEC resolution 8808 only pertains to the lump sum
benefit afforded by RA 1568. Also, Barcelona has not substantiated his claim that the discontinuance of his
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
CASTILLO, E.G.