Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    In Re Martin

    Uploaded by

    Ahmed Gakusei
    The document discusses the case of former Associate Justice Ruperto G. Martin who applied for disability retirement under Section 3 of Republic Act 910 after suffering a cerebral stroke at age 64. Section 3 provides for a 10-year lump sum payment with no further annuity. Eleven years later, Justice Martin applied for the lifetime pension under Section 1, arguing he was entitled to it at the time of his initial retirement. The Court denied this request based on the explicit language of Section 3. However, upon review, the Court found that retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of retirees. While Section 3 provides assistance to disabled retirees via a lump sum, it was not intended to deprive those also eligible under

    Copyright:

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

    In Re Martin

    Uploaded by

    Ahmed Gakusei
    44 views2 pages
    The document discusses the case of former Associate Justice Ruperto G. Martin who applied for disability retirement under Section 3 of Republic Act 910 after suffering a cerebral stroke at age 64. Section 3 provides for a 10-year lump sum payment with no further annuity. Eleven years later, Justice Martin applied for the lifetime pension under Section 1, arguing he was entitled to it at the time of his initial retirement. The Court denied this request based on the explicit language of Section 3. However, upon review, the Court found that retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of retirees. While Section 3 provides assistance to disabled retirees via a lump sum, it was not intended to deprive those also eligible under

    Original Title

    In re martin

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the case of former Associate Justice Ruperto G. Martin who applied for disability retirement under Section 3 of Republic Act 910 after suffering a cerebral stroke at age 64. Section 3 provides for a 10-year lump sum payment with no further annuity. Eleven years later, Justice Martin applied for the lifetime pension under Section 1, arguing he was entitled to it at the time of his initial retirement. The Court denied this request based on the explicit language of Section 3. However, upon review, the Court found that retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of retirees. While Section 3 provides assistance to disabled retirees via a lump sum, it was not intended to deprive those also eligible under

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    44 views2 pages

    In Re Martin

    Uploaded by

    Ahmed Gakusei
    The document discusses the case of former Associate Justice Ruperto G. Martin who applied for disability retirement under Section 3 of Republic Act 910 after suffering a cerebral stroke at age 64. Section 3 provides for a 10-year lump sum payment with no further annuity. Eleven years later, Justice Martin applied for the lifetime pension under Section 1, arguing he was entitled to it at the time of his initial retirement. The Court denied this request based on the explicit language of Section 3. However, upon review, the Court found that retirement laws should be interpreted liberally in favor of retirees. While Section 3 provides assistance to disabled retirees via a lump sum, it was not intended to deprive those also eligible under

    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 2

    FACTS: Former Associate Justice Ruperto G.

    Martin of this Court suffered a cerebral stroke when


    he was 64 years old. He applied for disability retirement under Section 3 of Republic Act 910, as
    amended, which the Court En Banc approved in its resolution dated January 10, 1978.
    "Sec. 3. Upon retirement [of a judge], [he] shall be automatically entitled 'to a lump sum of five
    years' gratuity computed on the basis of the highest monthly salary plus the highest monthly
    aggregate of transportation, living and representation allowances he was receiving on the date of
    his retirement; Provided, however, That if the reason for the retirement be any permanent
    disability contracted during his incumbency in office and prior to the date of retirement he shall
    receive only a gratuity equivalent to ten years' salary and allowances aforementioned with no
    further annuity payable monthly during the rest of the retirees' natural life."

    Eleven years later, Justice Martin applied for the lifetime pension provided in Section 1 of RA 910
    on the theory that at the time he applied for disability retirement under Section 3 of RA 910, on
    January 10, 1978, he had already "earned a vested right to such lifetime benefits" for he was
    more than 60 years of age and had rendered over 20 years service in the Government the last
    five of which had been continuously rendered in the judiciary

    “Sec. 1. A [judge] who has rendered at least twenty years service in the judiciary or in any other
    branch of the Government, or in both, (a) retires for having attained the age of seventy years, or
    (b) resigns by reason of his incapacity to discharge the duties of his office, he shall receive during
    the residue of his natural life, in the manner hereinafter provided, the salary which he was
    receiving at the time of his retirement or resignation.

    In view of the explicit provision in Section 3 that "if the reason for the retirement be any
    permanent disability . . . he shall receive only a gratuity equivalent to ten years' salary and
    allowances aforementioned with no further annuity payable monthly during the rest of the
    retiree's natural life," the Court En Banc denied his request.

    ISSUE: WON the interpretation (strict) of the court in relation to Section 3 of RA 910 was correctly
    applied.

    RULE: No. The Court found merit in the Justice Martin’s plea for a liberal interpretation of Section
    3 of RA 910. As held in Bautista v Auditor General: Retirement laws should be liberally construed
    and applied in favor of the persons intended to be benefited by them, and all doubts as to the
    intent of the law should be resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve its humanitarian
    purposes.

    The purpose of the ten-year lump sum under Section 3 is to enable the disabled retiree to meet
    the medical and hospital expenses for the treatment of his illness. If at the time of retirement he
    was already entitled to retire under Section 1 of RA 910 and to receive his 5-year lump sum plus a
    lifetime pension after five years, his having applied for disability retirement under Section 3 of
    the law in order that he may receive the 10-year lump sum gratuity, should not result in the
    forfeiture of his right to a lifetime pension if he should still be alive after ten (10) years from his
    retirement.
    The ten-year lump sum payment provided in Section 3 of RA 910 is intended to assist the stricken
    retiree in meeting his hospital and doctors' bills and expenses for his support. The law is not
    intended to deprive him of his lifetime pension if he is also entitled to retire under Section 1 and
    is fortunate to be still alive after ten years. The retirement law aims to assist the retiree in his old
    age, not to punish him for having survived.

    You might also like