Scribd
Upload
567 views2 pages

Allarde Vs COA Digest

This summary is about the extra allowance that Judge Allarde received from the Municipality of Muntinlupa. Judge Allarde filed a claim for this allowance with the Commission of Audit (CoA) upon his retirement, but the CoA denied his claim. Allarde then filed motions for reconsideration which were also denied. He then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the allowance Allarde received was not one of the allowances (transportation, living, or representation) that could be included in his retirement pay under the law. Thus, his petition for review was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Jamie Vod
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
567 views2 pages

Allarde Vs COA Digest

This summary is about the extra allowance that Judge Allarde received from the Municipality of Muntinlupa. Judge Allarde filed a claim for this allowance with the Commission of Audit (CoA) upon his retirement, but the CoA denied his claim. Allarde then filed motions for reconsideration which were also denied. He then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the allowance Allarde received was not one of the allowances (transportation, living, or representation) that could be included in his retirement pay under the law. Thus, his petition for review was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Jamie Vod
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Allarde v. CoAG.R. No. 103578 January 29, 1993GRINO-AQINO, J.!"#$CRI%&ION O' &(# CA$#!

This case is about the extra allowance that Judge Allarde receives(d)from the Municipality of
Muntinlupa.

Facts

Rodolfo T. Allarde (Allarde) was the presiding Judge of ranch !"#Metropolitan Trail $ourt in Muntinlupa#
Metro Manila. %e had resigned and
itwas accepted January &'# &. %e applied for retirement which the*upreme $ourt (*$) approved on
July &&# &!+n addition to Allarde,s retirement pay# -*+* included /0"#"""representing the 1 year
lump sum of his 0#""" allowance from theMunicipality of Muntinlupa. This was to be charged to the
Municipality of Muntinlupa in pursuance of atas ambansa lg. !22# which was sub3ect tothe
availability of funds. The Metro Manila Authority had received news regarding this and haddenied
Allarde of this bene4t.

$&A&#)#N& O' &(# CA$#!

Allarde 4lled a his claim on the $ommission of Audit ($oA)# which the$oA denied on. Allarde 4led a
memorandum5motion for reconsideration of the decision but $oA reiterated it,s deny on his claim. %e
then again 4led asecond reconsideration which met the same fate# hence this petition forreview.

I$$#!

6hether or not the Allowance provided by the Municipality of Muntinlupa is included in his retirement
pay.

R*ING

etition is

"#NI#"

7nder *ec. ' RA 8o. &" as amended by 9 8o. &0'!

"Sec. 3. Upon retirement, a justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, ora judge of the
Court of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Court, Agrarian Relations, TaAppeals, !uenile and #omestic
Relations, cit$ or municipal court, or an$ other courthereafter esta
%lished shall %e automaticall$ entitled to a lump sum of fie $ears& gratuit$ computed on the %asis of
the highest monthl$ salar$ plus the highest monthl$aggregate of transportation, liing and
representation allo'ances he 'as receiing onthe date of his retirement( )roided, ho'eer, that if the
reason for the retirement %ean$ permanent disa%ilit$ contracted during his incum%enc$ in office and
prior to thedate of retirement he shall receie onl$ a gratuit$ e*uialent to ten $ears& salar$
andallo'ances aforementioned 'ith no further annuit$ pa$a%le monthl$ during the rest of the retiree&s
natural life."

crala'irtua+a'li%rar$
$:8*TR7$T+:8 ; 6here the law is clear and categorical# then there is onlyroom
for implementation+t is clear that allowances that may be included must be either

transportation, living and representation allowance

. Allarde failed to provethat the allowance he received from the Municipality of Muntinlupa waseither of
this provided# thus cannot be considered as retirement gratituity. The *olicitor -
eneral added that such allowances does not constitutean integral part of the 3udges remuneration for it
MA< or MA< 8:T be givenby the local government and is dependent on the liberality of
the matter.*ince the retirement law was not intended to deal une=ually andunfairly with the 3udges# it
would be unfair for Judges of the same ran> if these allowances are mandatory since di?erent
municipalities have di?
erenteconomic capacities. *ome Judges may receive more while others mayreceive less.

"I$%O$I&I+# %OR&ION

6%@R@:R@# 4nding no grave abuse of discretion in the decision of the$ommission on Audit# the
petition for review is hereby 9+*M+**@

https://www.scribd.com/document/277078827/002-Allarde-v-CoA-G-R-No-103578-January-29-1993-
CASE-DIGEST-doc

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy