Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    Ligot v. Mathay Digest

    Uploaded by

    dondz
    1) Benjamin Ligot served three consecutive terms as a member of the Philippine House of Representatives from 1961-1969. During his second term, a law was passed increasing congressional salaries from P7,200 to P32,000 per year. 2) When Ligot retired in 1969, he claimed retirement gratuity based on the increased salary of P32,000. The Auditor General denied this claim. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in Ligot's favor, finding that based on retirement laws, he was entitled to have his gratuity calculated using the P32,000 salary that was in effect at the time of his retirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ligot v. Mathay Digest

    Uploaded by

    dondz
    84 views1 page
    1) Benjamin Ligot served three consecutive terms as a member of the Philippine House of Representatives from 1961-1969. During his second term, a law was passed increasing congressional salaries from P7,200 to P32,000 per year. 2) When Ligot retired in 1969, he claimed retirement gratuity based on the increased salary of P32,000. The Auditor General denied this claim. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in Ligot's favor, finding that based on retirement laws, he was entitled to have his gratuity calculated using the P32,000 salary that was in effect at the time of his retirement.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Benjamin Ligot served three consecutive terms as a member of the Philippine House of Representatives from 1961-1969. During his second term, a law was passed increasing congressional salaries from P7,200 to P32,000 per year. 2) When Ligot retired in 1969, he claimed retirement gratuity based on the increased salary of P32,000. The Auditor General denied this claim. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in Ligot's favor, finding that based on retirement laws, he was entitled to have his gratuity calculated using the P32,000 salary that was in effect at the time of his retirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    84 views1 page

    Ligot v. Mathay Digest

    Uploaded by

    dondz
    1) Benjamin Ligot served three consecutive terms as a member of the Philippine House of Representatives from 1961-1969. During his second term, a law was passed increasing congressional salaries from P7,200 to P32,000 per year. 2) When Ligot retired in 1969, he claimed retirement gratuity based on the increased salary of P32,000. The Auditor General denied this claim. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in Ligot's favor, finding that based on retirement laws, he was entitled to have his gratuity calculated using the P32,000 salary that was in effect at the time of his retirement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    BENJAMIN T. LIGOT V.

    ISMAEL MATHAY
    FACTS:
    The Petitioner served as a member of the House of Representatives of the
    Congress of the Philippines for three consecutive four-year terms covering a twelveyear span. During his second term in office (1961-1965), RA 4134 fixing the salaries of
    constitutional officials and certain other officials of the national government was
    enacted into law and under section 7 thereof took effect on July 1, 1964. The salaries of
    members of Congress were increased from P7,200.00 to P32,000.00 per annum. RA
    4134, expressly provided that said increases shall take effect in accordance with the
    provisions of the Constitution. When the petitioners term expired on December 30,
    1969, he filed a claim for retirement under Commonwealth Act 186, section 12 (c) as
    amended by RA 4968 which provided for retirement gratuity of any official or employee,
    appointive or elective, with a total of at least twenty years of service, the last three years
    of which are continuous on the basis therein provided in case of employees based on
    the highest rate received and in case of elected officials on the rates of pay as provided
    by law. His petition was granted by the House of Representatives. However, Velasco,
    the then Congress Auditor and Mathay, then Auditor General was disallowed his
    petition. The thrust of Ligots appeal is that his claim for retirement gratuity computed on
    the basis of the increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum for members of Congress
    should not have been disallowed, because at the time of his retirement, the increased
    salary for members of Congress as provided by law (under Republic Act 4134) was
    already P32,000.00 per annum.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the petitioner can claim his retirement gratuity based on the
    P32,000 per annum salary of the members of Congress.
    HELD:
    Yes. There is no question that Ligot is entitled to a retirement gratuity based on
    Commonwealth Act 186, section 12 as amended by RA 4968. The Court decided that to
    grant retirement gratuity to members of Congress whose terms expired on December
    30, 1969 computed on the basis of an increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum would
    be to pay them more than what is constitutionally allowed. Section 14, Article VI of the
    1935 Constitution provides that: No increase in said compensation shall take effect
    until after the expiration of the full term of all the members of the Senate and of the
    House of Representatives approving such increase.

    You might also like