Case Name Otamias v.

Republic
GR No. | Date 189516 | June 8, 2016
Topic Waiver of Rights - NCC 6; NCC 2035
EDNA MABUGAY-OTAMIAS, JEFFREN M. OTAMIAS and MINOR JEMWEL M.
OTAMIAS, represented by their mother EDNA MABUGAY OTAMIAS, petitioners, vs.
Parties Involved REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by COL. VIRGILIO O. DOMINGO, in his
capacity as the Commanding Officer of the PENSION AND GRATUITY MANAGEMENT
CENTER (PGMC) OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Ponente Leonen, J.
General Summary -

Facts
● Petitioner Edna Otamias and Colonel Otamias were married in 1978 but separated in 2000 due to the latter’s alleged
infidelity. Two years later, Edna filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Colonel Otamias and demanded monthly support
amounting to 75% of his retirement benefits from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
● On February 26, 2003, as a compromise agreement, the Colonel executed a Deed of Assignment[1] where he waived
50% of his salary and pension benefits in favor of his wife and their children.
● Such agreement was honored until January 6, 2006. Edna alleged that AFP suddenly revoked this agreement, stating in a
letter that a court order was required for them, AFP Pension and Gratuity Management Center (PGMC), to recognize
the Deed of Assignment.
● Following the advice of AFP PGMC, Edna, on behalf of herself and some of her children, filed before RTC of Cagayan
de Oro an action for support. Colonel Otamias was declared in default for failure to give a response after being
summoned several times.
● The trial court ruled in favor of Edna et al. and ordered the automatic deduction of the amount of support
from Colonel Otamias’ monthly pension.[2]
● On February 22, 2008, Edna et al. filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution[3] which the RTC granted.
● AFP then filed a Motion to Quash[4] the writ of execution which was denied; a reconsideration was filed but also denied.
● A Notice of Garnishment[5] was issued by the trial court received by the AFP PGMC.
● The AFP PGMC filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition which the Court of Appeals
granted. CA also partially nullified the trial court's Decision insofar as it directed the automatic deduction of
support from the pension benefits of Colonel Otamias.
● Edna et al. later on filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari; in her reply, she argued that the Deed of Assignment was
validly and legally executed.

Issue/s
1. Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the AFP Finance Center cannot be directed to automatically deduct the
amount of support needed by the legitimate family of Colonel Otamias.
2. Whether or not Colonel Otamias’ pension benefits can be executed for the financial support of his legitimate family.

Ruling
1. YES. The CA erred in ruling that the AFP Finance Center cannot be directed to automatically deduct the amount of
support needed by the legitimate family of Colonel Otamias.
2. YES, Colonel Otamias pension benefits can be executed for the financial support of his legitimate family.

Reasoning
1. Ratio Decidendi: Article 6 of the CC states that: Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law,
public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. The
concept of waiver has been defined by this Court as: A voluntary and intentional relinquishment or
abandonment of a known existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such
 waiver the party would have enjoyed; the voluntary abandonment or surrender, by a capable person, of a right known
by him to exist, with the intent that such right shall be surrendered and such person forever deprived of its benefit;...

[T]he doctrine of waiver extends to rights and privileges of any character, and, since the word 'waiver' covers every
conceivable right, it is the general rule that a person may waive any matter which affects his property, and any alienable
right or privilege of which he is the owner or which belongs to him or to which he is legally entitled, whether secured by
contract, conferred with statute, or guaranteed by constitution, provided such rights and privileges rest in the
individual, are intended for his sole benefit, do not infringe on the rights of others, and further provided the
waiver of the right or privilege is not forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy;...

When Colonel Otamias executed the Deed of Assignment, he effectively waived his right to claim that his
retirement benefits are exempt from execution. The right to receive retirement benefits belongs to Colonel Otamias.

Also, the Deed of Assignment should be considered as the law between the parties, and its provisions should be respected
in the absence of allegations that Colonel Otamias was coerced or defrauded in executing it. The general rule is that such
a contract should not be contrary to law.

Moreover, upon further examination, it was found that AFP PGMC actually allows deductions from a retiree's pension
for as long as the retiree executes a Special Power of Attorney authorizing it; it is therefore a question as to why this was
not done in the case of the Colonel as an easier remedy. Instead, Colonel Otamias' family was forced to incur litigation
expenses just to be able to receive the financial support that Colonel Otamias was willing to give to Edna, et al.

The non-inclusion of the AFP PGMC or the AFP Finance Center in the action for support was proper, considering that
both the AFP PGMC and the AFP Finance Center are not the persons obliged to give support to Edna, et al. Thus, it
was not a real party-in-interest. Nor was the AFP PGMC a necessary party because complete relief could be obtained
even without impleading the AFP PGMC.

2. Colonel’s Otamias’ decision to waive a portion of his retirement benefits does not infringe on the right of third persons,
in fact, it even protects the right of his family to receive support.

The Deed of Assignment executed by Colonel Otamias was not contrary to law; it was in accordance with the
provisions on support in Articles 194 - 197 of the Family Code. This case is pursuant to Art. 195, which provides:
Subject to the provisions of the succeeding articles, the following are obliged to support each other to the whole extent
set forth in the preceding article: (1) The spouses; (2) Legitimate ascendants and descendants;...

Based on the Family Code, Colonel Otamias is obliged to give support to his family, petitioners in this case.
However, he retired in 2003, and his sole source of income is his pension. Judgments in actions for support are
immediately executory, yet under Section 31 of Presidential Decree No. 1638, his pension cannot be executed upon.
However, considering that Colonel Otamias has waived a portion of his retirement benefits through his Deed of
Assignment, resolution on the conflict between the civil code provisions on support and Section 31 of Presidential
Decree No. 1638 should be resolved in a more appropriate case.

The 1987 Constitution gives much importance to the family as the basic unit of society, such that Article XV
85 is devoted to it. The passage of the Family Code further implemented Article XV of the Constitution.

_____________

[1] A Deed of Assignment is a contract where the owner (the “assignor”) transfers ownership over a certain property to another person
(the “assignee”) by way of assignment. As a result of the assignment, the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor and assumes all the
rights and obligations to the property.
[2] AFP filed a Manifestation/Opposition to counter this but it was not given due consideration because of late filing.
[3] A Writ of Execution is a judicial order that a judgment be enforced.
[4] A Motion to Quash is a request to a court or other tribunal to render a previous decision or proceeding null or invalid.
[5] A [Notice of ] Garnishment is a court order directing that money or property of a third party (usually wages paid by an employer) be
seized to satisfy a debt owed by a debtor to a plaintiff creditor.