EN BANC

A.M. No. 10962-Ret

APPLICATION FOR OPTIONAL RETIREMENT OF FORMER PRESIDING JUSTICE FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, SANDIGANBAYAN

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 25 2005.

Before the Court is the Compliance with the Resolution dated September 21, 2004 of former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena. The resolution required him to show cause why he should not be declared in contempt of court for receiving his retirement pay without first securing the final approval of the Court and why the Resolution of the Court dated October 1, 2002 should not be recalled and the amount of P5,197,829.88 ordered returned by him to the Sandiganbayan for lack of legal basis.

In his Compliance, PJ Garchitorena stressed that the Resolution dated October 1, 2002 already approved his retirement subject only to the availability of funds and verification. Since the matter of the availability of funds is settled, he believes that “the only matter that would be reasonably subject to verification would be whether or not the number of days indicated in his application for retirement dated September 24, 2002, which [he] sought to be tacked to his period of actual service, was accurate” and “whether or not these credits could be tacked to his 17 years, 9 months and 15 days of actual service in the government.”

He explained that he left the matter of benefits and the financial aspects thereof to administrative officials who, by the nature of their work and experience, were well versed in said matters. Sometime after Christmas of 2002, he received two checks totaling P5,207,709.88 as partial benefits. He had inquired about the correctness of the computation from the Acting Administrative Officer of the Sandiganbayan and in a letter dated October 18, 2004, the latter replied that she is aware of the doubt on whether PJ Garchitorena was entitled to retire under R.A. No. 910 and thus made the computation of the amount due to PJ Garchitorena based only on his basic salary and longevity pay. Said Acting Administrative Officer also informed PJ Garchitorena that the balance of his longevity pay in the amount of P942,000.00 was retained but will be granted to him as soon as the Supreme Court approves the tacking on of his leave credits to comply with the requirements of R.A. No. 910.

Based on the foregoing reply of the Sandiganbayan’s Acting chief Judicial Staff Officer, PJ Garchitorena came to the conclusion that “moneys were disbursed to [him] on the basis of the prudential doubt entertained by SANDIGANBAYAN officials”[1] regarding the matter of which law he was retirable.

PJ Garchitorena further points out that since his application for retirement dated September 24, 2002, already indicated that he was applying for retirement under R.A. NO. 910, he was of the belief that the approval of his retirement under R.A. No. 910 was already included in the Resolution dated October 1, 2002.

He also advances the view that the administrative case finding him guilty of inefficiency and gross neglect of duty should not have any bearing on the matter of his application for retirement under R.A. No. 910 because the resolution in said case penalized him only with a fine of P20,000.00 and does not mention any other penalty that might be imposed on him in the future.

Moreover, PJ Garchitorena called the Court’s attention to the action taken in A.M. No. 02-3-02-SB (Re: Request of Justice Nicodemo T. Ferrer to Retire under R.A. No. 910, as Amended), where, in a Resolution dated July 9, 2002, the Court granted Justice Ferrer’s request to be allowed to tack his available leave credits, ratiocinating as follows:

Thus, in a majority of cases, the tacking of leave credits to government service was allowed either to enable retiring members of the judiciary to complete the age/service requirements of R.A. No. 910 or to increase their longevity pay for purposes of computing their retirement benefits. Indeed, a policy allowing a retiring member of the judiciary to choose between the money value of his leave credits and the right to tack it to his service in the government to enable him to satisfy the service requirement of R.A. No. 910 in accordance with the well-settled rule that retirement laws are to be liberally construed in favor of the retiree.

Justice Ferrer thus received a total of 20% longevity pay for purposes of his retirement. This, despite the fact that Justice Ferrer had previously been severely reprimanded in two separate instances[2] for failing to decide cases for an unreasonable length of time, and then again found guilty for failure to decide cases within the mandatory period in A.M. No. 99-11-470-RTC.[3]

Verily, the Court having been sufficiently enlightened as to PJ Garchitorena’s justification for receiving the amount of P5,197,829.88,and taking into serious consideration the aforementioned precedent of the case regarding the retirement of Justice Ferrer, there is no reason why PJ Garchitorena’s request to tack on his accumulated leave credits to his actual years of government service should not also be granted.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court finds PJ Garchitorena’s explanation for receiving the amount of P5,197,829.88 to be satisfactory. His request to tack on his accumulated leave credits to his actual years of service and to retire under R.A. No. 910 is hereby GRANTED.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court

[2] A.M. No. 95-5-156 RTC and A.M. No. 96-11-415-RTC.

[3] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC Branch-37, Lingayen, Pangasinan, July 24, 2000, 336 SCRA 344 (2000)