The Supreme Court, in A.M. No. 10-9-15-SC, ruled that former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban’s service as Legal Counsel to the Department of Education (DepEd) and Consultant to the Board of National Education (BNE) from 1962 to 1965 should be included in the computation of his creditable government service for retirement benefits. This decision allowed him to meet the fifteen-year service requirement under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9946, entitling him to lifetime annuity. This case clarifies the scope of what constitutes creditable government service, impacting how retirement benefits are calculated for judicial officers and potentially other government employees. The ruling emphasizes a fact-based approach, considering actual services rendered rather than strict adherence to formal appointments, ensuring fairness and consistency in the grant of retirement benefits.

From Private Practice to Public Service: Can Consultancy Count Towards Retirement?

This case revolves around the request of former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban to have his service as Legal Counsel to the DepEd and Consultant to the BNE, from January 1962 to December 1965, recognized as creditable government service. The central legal question is whether such consultancy work, performed while also engaged in private law practice, qualifies as government service for the purpose of computing retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910, as amended by R.A. No. 9946. The resolution of this question has significant implications for defining the scope of creditable government service and ensuring fairness in the application of retirement laws to members of the judiciary.

Initially, the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) did not include CJ Panganiban’s four-year service, citing Rule XI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, which excludes consultancy from government service. However, R.A. No. 9946 reduced the required length of service from twenty to fifteen years, prompting CJ Panganiban to seek a re-computation to meet this new threshold. The Supreme Court found merit in his request, emphasizing that CJ Panganiban performed actual works and was assigned tasks essential to the DepEd and the BNE. Former Education Secretary Roces certified that CJ Panganiban rendered actual services to the BNE and the Department, having been officially appointed and compensated by the government.

Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion dissented, arguing that an appointment to a position within a government organizational structure is necessary for work to be considered government service. The Court, however, referred to the old Administrative Code (Act No. 2657), which defined a government employee as any person in the service of the Government, irrespective of grade or class. The Court noted that retired Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa’s service as a Member of the Court Studies Committee, a non-plantilla position, was deemed sufficient for crediting additional government service. Building on this principle, the Court found no reason to deny CJ Panganiban’s request, especially since it had previously credited post-retirement work of Justice Abraham T. Sarmiento and former CJ Narvasa as creditable government service.

Justice Brion also argued that CJ Panganiban’s claim in his Bio-Data and Personal Data Sheet, indicating his active private law practice, prevented him from asserting the contrary. The Court clarified that legal counselling work, even for a government agency, is part of legal practice, similar to CJ Narvasa’s involvement as Member of the Court Studies Committee while engaged in active law practice. While Justice Brion argued that no substantial proof supported the inference of government service, the Supreme Court highlighted the credibility of the sworn statements of Retired Justice Pardo and Former Education Secretary Roces, attesting to CJ Panganiban’s actual service.

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court affirmed its practice of liberal treatment in passing upon retirement claims of judges and justices, citing examples such as waiving length of service requirements in cases of disability or death, adding accumulated leave credits to actual service, and considering legal counselling work as creditable government service. The Court emphasized that no liberal construction was necessary to resolve CJ Panganiban’s request, as consistency in its rulings was the key consideration. The dissenting opinions raised concerns regarding the potential impact of the ruling on the Civil Service Commission and other government agencies, and the possible opening of a Pandora’s box of claims for retirement benefits.

The decision to grant CJ Panganiban’s request hinged on the actual services he rendered and the credibility of the testimonies supporting his claim. The Supreme Court emphasized that the absence of a specific position in a governmental structure should not be a hindrance when the individual’s work is necessary and desirable to the main purpose of the government entity. This ruling underscores the importance of a fact-based approach in determining what constitutes creditable government service, ensuring fairness and consistency in the application of retirement laws.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether CJ Panganiban’s service as Legal Counsel to the DepEd and Consultant to the BNE from 1962 to 1965 could be considered creditable government service for retirement benefits.
What is R.A. No. 9946?	R.A. No. 9946 is an act that amended R.A. No. 910, reducing the required length of government service for retirement benefits from 20 years to 15 years.
Why was CJ Panganiban’s initial request denied?	The initial request was denied because the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) did not consider consultancy as government service under existing rules.
What evidence did CJ Panganiban present to support his claim?	CJ Panganiban presented certifications from Former Education Secretary Alejandro R. Roces and Retired Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, attesting to his services.
What was Justice Brion’s dissenting argument?	Justice Brion argued that there must be an appointment to a position that is part of a government organizational structure for any work to be considered government service.
How did the Court justify including CJ Panganiban’s service?	The Court justified it by pointing to CJ Panganiban’s work being necessary and desirable to the main purpose of the DepEd and the BNE, citing similar cases.
What is the significance of the old Administrative Code in this case?	The old Administrative Code defined a government employee as any person in the service of the Government, irrespective of grade or class, supporting the inclusion of CJ Panganiban’s service.
Did the Court’s decision mean all consultancy work is now creditable government service?	No, the court did not categorically declare all consultancy work as government service, but emphasized that a fact-based approach must be applied.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in A.M. No. 10-9-15-SC clarifies the scope of creditable government service for the purpose of retirement benefits, emphasizing the importance of actual services rendered and fairness in the application of retirement laws. While the ruling may have far-reaching implications, it underscores the importance of consistency and fact-based analysis in determining what constitutes government service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: REQUEST OF (RET.) CHIEF JUSTICE ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN FOR RE-COMPUTATION OF HIS CREDITABLE SERVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE-COMPUTING HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS., 55539, February 12, 2013