31\epublir of tbc llbtlippines

~upretnc QI:ourt
;!flr1mt i ln

EN BANC

ELAINE R. ABANTO, NINFA B. G.R. No. 207281

ABOTOTO, MAGTANGGOL P.
AGUILA, MARIE PAZ F.
AGUILA, MERLINDA V.
ALCANTARA, REMEGIO S.
AMAR, JOSEFINA A. AMPAT,
ADRIAN E. ANCHETA, ANDRES
P. ANDRADA, DANILO R.
ANGELES, JOSEFINA P. ARCE,
SALVACION G. ARZADON,
JOEL F. ASCANO, MA.
VICTORIA B. ASETRE, EMILIO
I. BACCAY, JESUSA A.
BALINGAO, GIL C. BANDILLA,
LAURA G. BAQUIRAN, MARLAN
G. BARBA, LOURDES M.
BEAULAC, EDISON A.
BELARMINO, RENE L.
BELJERA, DALISAY D.
BERNARDO, AUREO B.
BILANGEL, JR.,i LUCIBAR G.
BODO, MELBA GLORIA M.
BUMA-AT, CLARA LANI G.
CABABARO, BERNADETTE G.ii
CABERTE, EVANGELINE J.
CALUB, MA. ROSARIO P.
CALUB, SONIA F. CASTEN, JOSE
P. CASTRO, AIDA LINA D.
CELINO, EMILY A. COLICO,
TOBIAS V. COLINA,
FRANCISCO R. CRUZ, LILEIZA
A. CRUZ, LEROY A. CUEVAS,
ANTONIO P. CUSTODIO,
SYLVIA G. DACUAN, RITA M.
DAGAL, ROSALIER B.
DAGONDON, MARCELO S.

Stated as "Aureo Jr. B. Bilangel" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, rollo (G.R. No. 207281),
pp. 3, 316. Substituted by his heirs Salvadora N. Bilangel, Judy Ann N Bilangel, Monica N. Bilangel,
Charles N. Bilangel, and John N. Bilangel; see Notice of Death of Party and Substitution, rollo (G.R.
No. 207281), Vol. 2, pp. 992-994.
ii Also stated as "C" in other parts of the rollo.
 Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

DANGCALAN,m OFELIA C. DE
GUZMAN~ CARINA G. DELA
CRUZ, ELIZABETH M. DELA
PENA, RODOLFO T. DE LEON,
DENNIS A. DINO, LETICIA N.
DUCUSIN, FRED S. EDANIO,
ROSABEL C. ESTEBAN,
LEONORA A. FERNANDEZ,
MARIETTA F. FERNANDEZ,
ROSALIO G. FETALBO,
ROGELIO C. FLORES,
PURIFICACION G. FRONDOZO,
MA. ANA B. FUENTES, MARIE TA
M. GARCIA, NUMIER T. GO,
ROLANDO N. GORDOVEZ,
ADELAIDA B. GUANZON,
DOMINGO A. HABULAN,
CECILIA S. HERMOSURA,
CESAR M. JACOB, ESTRELLA E.
!CASIANO, MA. LUZ L.
JARDENIL, ANICETO K.
JAVIER, JR.,iv ZENAIDA D. JOSE,
RODELIO L. LABIT, CRISTINA
V. LAFUENTE, JANNETTE G.
LAGAREJOS, RUFO M.
LEDESMA, LOURDES ANNE E.
LIAO, ENRIQUETA A.
LLORENTE, ALBERTO S.
LOPEZ, LEDELINA B. LOVERES,
JOSE R. LUMINATE, THELMA V.
MACEDA, CLARITO L.v
MAGSINO, CEFERINA C.
MAKASIAR, NELSON D.
MAKASIAR, AMORDELIZA C.
MANAMTAM, DANILO A.
MANAMTAM,vi LORNA S.
MANLAPIG, AIDA D. MANZANO,
GETULIO E. MARCOS,vii
iii Substituted by his heirs Jovencia T. Dangcalan, Joemar Tan Dangcalan, and Kim Tan Dangcalan; see Notice
of Death of Party and Substitution, rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 978-981 and Manifestation Re: Notice
of Death and Substitution for Petitioner Marcelo Sumiwan Dangcalan, id. at 986-988.
iv Also stated as "Aniceto Jr. K. Javier" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, ro/lo (G.R. No.
207281), pp. 4, 317.
Also stated as "D" in other parts of the rollo.
vi Substituted by his heirs Amordeliza C. Manamtam, Andrey Dan Manamtam, Aleeza Danice Manamtam,
and Aldrich Dan Manamtam; see Notice of Death of Party and Substitution, rollo (G .R. No. 210922),
Vol. I, pp. 716-718 and Manifestation Re: Notice of Death for Petitioner Danilo Abisinia Manamtam,
rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 973-977.
vii Substituted by his heirs Feliciana S. Marcos, Jefferson S. Marcos, Jenny Pearl S. Marcos, Christopher
S. Marcos, and Roxanne S. Marcos; see Notice of Death of Party and Substitution with Manifestation,
rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. I, pp. 753-758.
 Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

JUANITA C. MATA, MARILOU S.

MATANGUIHAN, CAESAR M.
MATIGNAS, NATIVIDAD S.
MAUSISA, CONRADO P.
MEDINA, GREGORIO M. MICO,
JR.,vm EULINIA S. MORALES,
LILIAN 0. MORALES,
GORGONIO T. MORA,
BERNARDINO E. OLAYVAR,
JR.,ix EDUARDO A. ONG, MARIA
LUISA J. PADILLA, CESAR A.
PADRIQUE, ROSARIO MELANIE
C. PAMA, SOTERO A. PINE, MA.
THERESA L. QUIRINO, AURORA
A. RADOMES, RICARDO 0.
RAMIREZ, ADELA P. RARA,
EDUARDO E. REYES, AIDA A.
RIVERA, EDITHA P. RIVERA,
ANITA C. RIVERO, SUSAN V.
RODRIGUEZ, GIL A. ROMERO,
ARSENIO V. ROYALES v,x
ENRIQUE P. SADIE, DIANA T.
SANTIAGO, TERESITA S.
SANTIAGO, RICARDO P.
SANTILLAN, xi ALMA P. SANTOS,
DOROTHY c.xii SANTOS,
JUANITO C. SEBASTIAN,
IGNACIO C. SERRANO,
JOCELYN G. SIONGCO, MA.
BELLA L. SORIANO, THELMA C.
SUSTENTO,xiii RAUL T. TAASAN,
IMELDA L. TAGARAO, RODEL
C. TANINAS,xiv MA. LIBERTY C.
TEC, BENILDA A. TEJADA,
NENITA C. TENORIO, GRACE M.
TERTE, AME CRIS C. TOLEDO,
ERNESTO P. TORPIAS,
GRESELDA MARGARITA S.
TORRALBA, DANILO S.
VELORIA, ALMARIO SJ.

viii Also stated as "Gregorio Jr. M. Mico" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, rollo (G.R. No.
207281), pp. 4, 317.
ix Also stated as "Bernardino Jr. E. Olayvar" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, id.
Also stated as "Arsenio V.V. Royales" in the title of the Petition and Manifestation, id.
xi See Manifestation, rollo (G.R. No. 207281 ), Vol. I, pp. 316-321.
xii Also stated as "D" in other parts of the rollo.
xiii Substituted by her heirs Joanna Chris C. Sustento and Julius Cezar C. Sustento; see Notice of Death of
Party and Substitution, ro/lo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. I, pp. 692-695.
xiv Substituted by his heir Teresita D. Tanifias; see Notice of Death of Party and Substitution, rollo (G.R.
No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 1033-1035.
 Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

VENTURA, EUGENIO 0. VERDE,

MA. ISABEL H. VERDE,
ANNABELLA T. VERGARA,
ALBERTO D. VILLARIN,
AURITA B. VILLOSO, and
DANIEL C. VINLUAN,
Petitioners,

-versus-

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OF THE DEVELOPMENT BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINES, namely:
JOSE A. NUNEZ, GIL
BUENAVENTURA, JUAN KEVIN
G. BELMONTE, DANIEL Y.
LAOGAN, ALBERTO A. LIM,
CECILIO B. LORENZO, and
JOSE LUIS L. VERA,
Respondents.

MARY IRMA D. LARA and

JOSEPHINE JAURIGUE,
Petitioners-in-Intervention.

x--------------------------x
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE G.R. No. 210922
PHILIPPINES,
Present:
Petitioner,
BERSAMIN, C.J.,
CARPIO,
PERALTA,
DEL CASTILLO,
PERLAS-BERNABE,*
LEONEN,
- versus - JARDELEZA, **
CAGUIOA,
A. REYES, JR.,
GESMUNDO,
J. REYES, JR.,
HERNANDO, and
CARANDANG, JJ.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Promulgated:

March 5, 2019<
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------

• On official leave.
•• No part.

~·
 Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

DECISION
CAGUIOA, J.:

Before the Court are two consolidated petitions relating to the validity
of the Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) IV-2010 of the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). G.R. No. 207281 is a Petition
for Mandamus 1 filed by 141 former DBP employees (petitioners-retirees) who
retired under the ERIP IV-2010 against the DBP Board of Directors (DBP
Board); while G.R. No. 210922 is a Petition for Certiorari2 with application
for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction
filed by the DBP against the Commission on Audit (COA) questioning the
Audit Observation Memorandum and the Notice of Disallowance issued by
the latter over the ERIP IV-2006 and 2007.

Factual Antecedents

Background on the ERIP

In 1999, the DBP Board approved DBP's Position Classification

System and Compensation Plan. In line with this, the DBP Board adopted
Resolution No. 0176 3 on June 6, 2003, which granted retirement benefits to
qualified officials and employees through the ERIP IV for Calendar Years
(CY) 2003 and 2008. The general objective of ERIP IV was to ensure the
vitality of the bank for the next 10 years and make it attuned to the continuing
advances in banking technology. 4

Several ERIP Programs were approved and implemented prior to 2003,

namely: ERIP I, ERIP II, and ERIP III from 1985 to 2002. ERIP IV was
approved in 2003 (ERIP IV-2003), with a 10-year period implementation
beginning 2003 until 2012 and an estimated budget outlay of around Pl.7
Billion. It has two tranches: 2003-2008 and 2008-2012. Petitioners-retirees
belong to the second tranche. 5

On June 12, 2003, DBP Circular No. 15 6 was issued, providing the
guidelines on the implementation of the ERIP IV for CY 2003 and 2008.
Below are the relevant portions of said circular:

A. OBJECTIVES:

General Objective

The general objective of ERIP IV is to ensure the vitality of the Bank

for the next ten (10) years and make it attuned to the continuing
advances in banking technology.

Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, pp. 3-181, excluding Annexes.

Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. l, pp. 3-62, excluding Annexes.
Id. at 75-81.
Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. I, pp. 8-9.
Id. at 9.
6
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. I, pp. 82-89.
 Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

Specific Objectives

The specific objectives are:

1. to infuse new talents/skills/insights into the Bank through the

entry/promotion of younger corps of personnel via a Bank[-]wide
succession program[;]

2. to enable the Bank to attain cost savings in its personnel budget[; and]

3. to create new opportunities for career advancement in the Bank.

B. COVERAGE

The ERIP IV shall be open to:

1. officials and employees aged 50 or above with at least 15 years of

creditable government service as of the date of application[;]

2. other officials and employees identified by the Screening

Committee who may be displaced as a consequence of realignment
or streamlining of work processes, regardless of whether or not they
meet the age and service requirements of #1 above. Management,
through the Sector Heads, shall so advise said officials and
employees in writing to apply immediately. 7

The Audit Observation Memorandum

and the Notice ofDisallowance

On February 19, 2007, the COA, through its Supervising Auditor

assigned in DBP, Atty. Hilconeda P. Abril (Atty. Abril), issued AOM No. HO-
HRM-ERIP-AOM-2006-038 (AOM) which stated that DBP's ERIP IV-2003
was implemented contrary to the provision of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 8523. 9

In the AOM, Atty. Abril recommended that DBP: (i) secure the
approval of the Secretary of Finance; (ii) suspend, in the meantime, the
implementation of ERIP IV; and (iii) require the recipients of ERIP IV to
return the benefits received in excess of that allowed by DBP's gratuity plan. 10

DBP filed its Reply to the AOM, arguing that Section 34 11 of Executive
Order No. (E.O.) 81 12 or the Revised DBP Charter (DBP Charter) which

7
Id. at 82.
Id. at 91-94.
9
Id. at 629. R.A. 8523 is entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 81."
10
Id. at 94 and 629.
II
SEC. 34. Separation Benefits. - All those who shall retire from the service or are separated therefrom
on account of the reorganization of the Bank under the provisions of this Charter shall be entitled to all
gratuities and benefits provided for under existing laws and/or supplementary retirement plans adopted
by and effective in the Bank: Provided, that any separation benefits and incentives which may be granted
by the Bank subsequent to June 1, 1986, which may be in addition to those provided under existing laws
and previous retirement programs of the Bank prior to the said date, for those personnel referred to in
this section shall be funded by the National Government; Provided, further, that, any supplementary
retirement plan adopted by the Bank after the effectivity of this Charter shall require the prior approval
of the Minister of Finance.
12
PROVIDING FOR THE 1986 REVISED CHARTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES.

~~
 Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

requires prior approval of the Secretary of Finance should be applied only to

a supplementary retirement plan. 13

Pursuant to the AOM, Atty. Abril issued Notice of Disallowance No.

ERIP-2006-007(03-06) 14 (ND) dated May 17, 2007 which disallowed the
payment of retirement benefits granted to DBP's officials and employees
under ERIP IV-2003 for lack of approval from the Secretary of Finance and
the President as required under Section 34 of the DBP Charter, as amended,
and Section 3 of Memorandum Order No. 20 dated June 25, 2001 issued by
the Office of the President. The ND further directed the persons named therein
to settle immediately the aforesaid disallowance. 15

Proceedings before the COA, with

material incidents within DBP

Aggrieved by the issuance of the ND, DBP filed on October 9, 2007 a

Notice of Appeal before the COA Office of the Corporate Auditor (OCA). 16

Meanwhile, in a letter 17 dated March 16, 2007, the Department of

Budget and Management (DBM) approved DBP's request to be exempted
from the preparation of a Rationalization Plan under E.O. 366. 18

Despite its initial objection to secure the approval from the authorizing
officials, DBP nonetheless requested for the approval of the Secretary of
Finance and confirmation by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
(President Arroyo), which were favorably acted upon through letters dated
January 14, 2009 and April 22, 2010, respectively. However, the COA argued
that the President's approval was good for the period of up to June 30, 2010
only. 19

On June 16, 2010, during the pendency of its appeal before the OCA,
DBP approved the resumption of ERIP IV through Board Resolution No.
016720 (ERIP IV-2010). 21 Said Board Resolution provides that the application
period for the ERIP IV-2010 shall be from the issuance of its implementing
guidelines until December 31, 2011 and the effective date of retirement shall
be no later than December 31, 2012. 22

On July 9, 2010, DBP filed with COA's Cluster Director (where the
appeal from the ND was pending) a Manifestation and Motion alleging that

13
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. I, p. 629.
14
ld.at95-113.
15
Id. at 629.
16 Id.
17
Id. at 114.
18
Id. at 629-630.
19
Id. at 630.
20
Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. I, p. 214.
21
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. I, p. 630.
22
Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. I, pp. 12, 214.
 Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

the disallowance on the ERIP IV-2003 has been rendered moot and academic
by virtue of the approval and confirmation made by the Secretary of Finance
and then President Arroyo. 23

On November 12, 2010, DBP issued an Advisory24 to all DBP

employees informing them that per Board Resolution No. 0323, the deadline
for the filing of applications under the ERIP IV-2010 was moved from
December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2010. Consequently, petitioners-retirees,
along with other DBP employees, heeded the invitation to avail of the
retirement benefits under ERIP IV-2010. 25

Meanwhile, in CGS-A Decision No. 005 26 (CGS Decision) dated

December 28, 2010, the COA Corporate Government Sector (CGS) denied
the appeal and affinned the ND, ruling that DBP's ERIP IV-2003 violated
Section 10 of R.A. 4968 27 or the Teves Retirement Law, which prohibits the
creation of a supplementary retirement plan. Also, the CGS ruled that the
President's approval was made within the election period, where the giving of
salary or remuneration increase is prohibited under Section 261, Article XXII
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 or the Omnibus Election Code. 28

On February 17, 2011, DBP filed a petition for review29 before the
COA, seeking to reverse the CGS Decision on the following grounds: (i)
DBP's right to due process was violated when the CGS cited additional
grounds for the disallowance which were not mentioned in the ND; (ii) ERIP
IV is not a supplementary retirement plan contemplated in R.A. 4968; (iii)
DBP has the authority to fix the compensation, remuneration, and emoluments
of its employees including the adoption of ERIP IV; and (iv) the employees
and officers should not be ordered to refund the disallowed amount on account
of good faith. 30

Despite the disallowance of ERIP IV-2003, petitioners-retirees allege

that their applications under ERIP IV-2010 were still approved by DBP
beginning February 2, 2012 and confirmed by the DBP Board. According to
them, DBP did not warn them of any possible setback on the ERIP program
to allow the availees to at least rethink their positions. Rather, they continued
to offer the ERIP IV-2010 to DBP employees. They claim that DBP even
invited the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to conduct seminars
on retirement options and benefits despite their knowledge of the CGS
Decision and the pendency of their appeal before the COA. Additionally,
sometime in October 2012, DBP issued an advisory asking the ERIP IV-2010

23
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 630.
24
Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. l, p. 215.
25
Id. at 12-13.
26
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 180-187. Penned by Director IV Luz Loreto-Tolentino.
27
AN ACT AMENDING FURTHER COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIX, AS
AMENDED; approved on June 17, 1967 and published on February 24, 1969.
28
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 630.
29
Id. at 188-258.
30
Id. at 64-65.
 Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

retirees to identify and train potential successors to their positions prior to the
effectivity of their retirement. 31

Subsequently, on January 30, 2013, the COA issued the assailed

Decision No. 2013-046 32 (COA Decision), the dispositive portion of which
states:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Petition is

DENIED and COA CGS-A Decision No. 005 dated December 28, 2010
affirming ND No. ERIP-2006-007(03-06) dated May 17, 2007 on the
payment of retirement benefits to DBP officials and employees in the total
amount of P747,174,594.28 is hereby AFFIRMED. 33

Meanwhile, in a letter dated February 14, 2013, the DBP Board

informed the ERIP IV-2010 availees who retired effective December 31, 2012
(mostly under Board Resolution No. 0167 - the resumption ofERIP IV) that
DBP had decided to hold in abeyance the final implementation of the ERIP
IV pending the resolution of the ND. 34

DBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the COA Decision,

which was denied by the COA in a Resolution35 dated December 6, 2013. 36

In the interim, petitioners-retirees sent a demand letter on March 12,

2013 to Jose Nufiez (Mr. Nufiez), chairman of the Board, asking for immediate
release of their benefits and informing the DBP Board that they are still open
to negotiation in order to reach a peaceful settlement. 37

On March 15, 2013, Mr. Nufiez and Gil Buenaventura (Mr.

Buenaventura), a board member, sent individual letters to petitioners-retirees
informing them that on March 1, 2013, DBP received a copy of the COA
Decision affirming the disallowance of the ERIP IV-2003. The letters also
informed them that DBP already prepared the Guidelines for the Return to
Work of the ERIP IV-2010 retirees. In the letter, the following portion of the
Opinion of the Civil Service Commission was quoted, to wit:
Therefore, in case the DBP decides not to move for the
reconsideration of the COA Decision dated January 30, 2013, the same will
attain finality and become executory. Verily, the DBP may already reinstate
the ERIP IV availees to their former positions with payment of back salaries
and other benefits including leave credits from the time they were separated
from the service until their actual reinstatement. However, if the DBP
moves for reconsideration of the COA decision, the reinstatement of the

31
Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, pp. 13-14.
32
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 63-72. Decided by Chairperson Ma. Gracia M. Pulido-Tan,
Commissioner Juanito G. Espino, Jr. and Commissioner Heidi L. Mendoza.
33
Id. at 71-72.
34
Id. at 15.
35
Id. at 73-74.
36
Id. at 631.
37
Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, p. 15.
 Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

affected employees will depend on the decision of the COA on the Motion
for Reconsideration. x x x38

Essentially, petitioners-retirees were given two choices: (1) to return to

work on the condition that they withdraw their ERIP IV-2010 application; or
(2) to await the COA resolution on the MR that DBP then intended to file. 39

On March 21, 2013, Mr. Nufiez sent a letter-reply to the demand letter
where he reiterated his previous explanations as to the disallowance and
claimed that DBP, "in exercising extraordinary due diligence in the handling
of public funds [was] constrained not to release the ERIP IV[-2010]
incentives." 40 Then, as mentioned earlier, DBP filed on March 27, 2013 its
MR of the COA Decision. 41

On June 13, 2013, the petitioners-retirees filed the instant Petition for
Mandamus against the DBP Board, praying for the release of their retirement
benefits under ERIP IV-2010. Subsequently, on February 3, 2014, DBP filed
the instant Petition for Certiorari with application for TRO and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, assailing the COA Decision.

Petitions before the Court

Petition for Mandamus

In their Petition for Mandamus, petitioners-retirees argue that the DBP

Board unlawfully neglected the release of their retirement benefits which the
law specifically enjoins as their duty. They point out that there is no
disallowance for ERIP IV-2010 as the COA Decision pertained to ERIP IV-
2003 to 2008. They also argue that they have a vested right to the retirement
benefits and it is the DBP Board's ministerial duty to release the same after
they have complied with all the requirements under the ERIP IV Guidelines.
In addition, they aver that the DBP Board acted in bad faith when the latter
retired them from their positions despite their knowledge of the Decision
disallowing ERIP IV-2003. Lastly, they cite R.A. 10154, 42 which mandates
that the highest priority should be given to the payment of retirement benefits
of retiring government employees. 43

On October 29, 2013, the DBP Board filed its Comment. 44 At the outset,
it claims that petitioners-retirees are not entitled to the writ of mandamus for
failing to show that they have a clear right to the ERIP IV benefits, in light of the

38
Id. at 16. Italics and underscoring omitted.
39
Id. at 16-17.
4o Id.atl7.
41
Id. at 268-309, excluding Annexes.
42
AN ACT REQUIRING ALL CONCERNED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO ENSURE THE EARLY RELEASE Of THE
RETIREMENT PAY, PENSIONS, GRATUITIES, AND OTHER BENEFITS OF RETIRING GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES.
43
Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. I, pp. 17-20.
44
Id. at 354-393.
 Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

COA Decision which ruled against the validity of the entire ERIP IV Program.
Moreover, mandamus does not lie because the act sought to be done is not
ministerial. The DBP Board insists that it acted in accordance with their duty to
exercise extraordinary diligence in their treatment ofDBP's properties. 45

On January 16, 2014, the petitioners-retirees filed their Reply46

maintaining their entitlement to the writ of mandamus and reiterating their
grounds raised in the petition.

Petition for Certiorari

In its Petition for Certiorari, DBP claims that the COA gravely abused
its discretion in denying its appeal on the ND. DBP maintains that the
prohibition in the Teves Retirement Law does not preclude the adoption of an
early retirement incentive plan. Moreover, DBP avers that the ERIP IV is not
a supplementary retirement plan which is prohibited by the Teves Retirement
Law. In any case, even ifthe ERIP IV were a supplementary retirement plan,
DBP claims that no less than this Court, in the 2004 case of DBP v. COA, 47
held that the DBP Board has the authority under its charter to adopt a
supplementary retirement plan. Finally, even assuming that the disbursements
under ERlP IV were properly disallowed, DBP argues that the COA should
have applied the prevailing jurisprudence that disallowed benefits received in
good faith need not be refunded. 48

Additionally, DBP repleads the same ground in its prayer for the
issuance of a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction. 49

On February 18, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution50 which reads in part:

x x x Acting on the Petition x x x, the Court Resolved, without

giving due course to the petition, to

(a) REQUIRE the respondent to COMMENT on the petition

within ten (10) days from notice hereof; and

(b) ISSUE a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, effective

immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, restraining
the respondent from implementing assailed Decision No. 2013-046 dated
January 30, 2013, Resolution dated December 6, 2013 and Notice of
Disallowance No. ERIP-2006-007 (03-06) dated May 17, 2007 on
petitioner's Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) IV.5'

On May 2, 2014, the COA filed its Comment52 to the petition for
certiorari, maintaining that the disallowance was proper because ERlP IV is
45
Id. at 367-368.
46
Id. at 542-569.
47
467 Phil. 62 (2004).
48
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. I, pp. 16-18.
49
Id. at 56-57.
50
Id. at 615-616.
51
Id. at 615.
52
Id. at 628-650.

~,
 Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

a supplemental retirement plan proscribed by the Teves Retirement Law. It

argues that the DBP Board does not have authority under its Charter to grant
the ERIP IV, and even if it was authorized, it was still incumbent upon the
Board to obtain prior approval by the Secretary of Finance. The COA also
maintains that the payees are liable for the return of the disallowed benefits
under the ERIP IV.

On August 20, 2014, DBP filed its Reply, 53 insisting that the ERIP IV
is a valid early retirement plan and the fact that the ERIP IV is available to
employees eligible to retire under the GSIS retirement laws is not inconsistent
with an early retirement plan. This is because the nature and purpose of the
program define whether it is an early retirement plan or a supplementary
retirement plan. Additionally, DBP avers that the incentives granted under the
ERIP IV are akin to the separation pay allowed by this Court in the case of
Betoy v. The Board ofDirectors, National Power Corporation 54 (Betoy), and
that such benefit in addition to retirement benefits does not amount to double
compensation prohibited by the Constitution. DBP also argues that the
authority granted by law to the DBP Board to define what constitutes as part
of compensation relates to its independence and autonomy to design its own
compensation plan. Assuming that the incentives are classified as "retirement
benefits," DBP invokes jurisprudence which provides that even retirement
benefits received in good faith need not be refunded. 55

Subsequently, the Court issued a Resolution 56 consolidating the two

petitions.

On October 20, 2017, Mary Irma D. Lara and Josephine Jaurigue

(petitioners-movants) filed a Motion for Inclusion 57 as petitioners to G.R. No.
207281. They claim that they are also retirees under the ERIP IV-2010 and are
similarly situated as the petitioners-retirees. In its Comment58 dated December
20, 2017, DBP interposed no objection to the motion filed by the petitioners-
movants. This Comment was subsequently noted by the Court. 59

Compromise Agreement

On March 23, 2018, the petitioners-retirees 60 and DBP filed a

Manifestation and Motion for Resolution with Joint Motion for Judgment
Based on Compromise Agreement, 61 where they pray for:

53
Id. at 659-679.
54 674 Phil. 204 (20 I I).
55
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 659-661.
56
Id. at 652.
57
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 964-970.
58
Id. at 995-998.
59
Id. at 1013-I014. Resolution dated January 30, 2018.
60
Id. at 1021. Petitioners-movants Mary Irma D. Lara and Josephine Jaurigue also signed the Compromise
Agreement with the following notation: "subject to a favorable resolution of their Motion for Inclusion as
Petitioners to G.R. No. 207281 dated October 19, 2017."
61
Id. at 1015-1030, including Annexes.

~-
 Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

1. The Honorable Court [to] resolve the consolidated cases G.R. Nos.
207281 and 210922; and

2. In the event of a decision in favor of DBP in G.R. No. 210922, the

parties pray for the Honorable Court to approve the attached Compromise
Agreement and that judgment be rendered in accordance therewith, without
pronouncement as to the cost of suit. 62

Based on the Compromise Agreement, 63 DBP has agreed to release to

the petitioners-retirees the full amount of their benefits under ERIP IV-2010.

In the said Motion, the parties therein claimed that they referred the
Compromise Agreement to COA Chairperson Michael G. 64 Aguinaldo,
who wrote in a letter65 dated July 14, 2017 that: "[ c]onsidering that the issue
on the propriety and/or legality of the disallowance on the retirement
benefits under the ERIP is litis pendentia, this Commission deems it
prudent to await the final decision of the Supreme Court on the case or on
the proposed compromise agreement before taking any further action on
[the] proposal. " 66

Issues

1) Whether COA gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction in disallowing the benefits under DBP's ERIP
IV-2003; and

2) Whether the petition for mandamus should be granted to compel the

DBP Board to release the benefits under ERIP IV-2010.

The Court's Ruling

The Petition for Certiorari is granted, while judgment on the Petition

for Mandamus shall be rendered based on the compromise agreement.

Classification ofthe ERIP

Based on the submissions 67 of the parties before the Court, both DBP
and COA have limited the issues on the legal basis for the disallowance of
ERIP IV to the following threshold questions: whether the same is a
supplementary retirement plan prohibited by the Teves Retirement Law and

62
Id.at1016.
63
Id. at 1021-1029.
64
Also stated as "C" in the Manifestation and Motion for Resolution with Joint Motion for Judgment Based
on Compromise Agreement and the Compromise Agreement, id. at 1016, 1024.
65
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, p. 1030.
66 Id.
67
Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. I, pp. 16-20 (DBP's Petition); rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, pp. 632
(COA's Comment) and 659-661 (DBP's Reply); rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 755-756 (DBP's
Memorandum) and 912 (COA's Memorandum).
Decision 14 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

whether the DBP Board is authorized to grant the same under its Charter.
Hence, the Court shall likewise limit its evaluation on these grounds.

In order to properly classify ERIP IV, resort is made to DBP Circular

No. 15 which contains the Guidelines on the Implementation of the ERIP IV
for Calendar Years 2003 and 2008. For easier reference, the pertinent
provisions are reproduced below:

A. OBJECTIVES:

General Objective

The general objective of ERIP IV is to ensure the vitality of the Bank for
the next ten (10) years and make it attuned to the continuing advances in
banking technology.

Specific Objectives

The specific objectives are:

1. to infuse new talents/skills/insights into the Bank through the

entry/promotion of younger corps of personnel via a Bank[-]wide
succession program[;]

2. to enable the Bank to attain cost savings in its personnel budget[; and]

3. to create new opportunities for career advancement in the Bank.

B.COVERAGE

The ERIP IV shall be open to:

1. officials and employees aged 50 or above with at least 15 years of

creditable government service as of the date of application[; and]

2. other officials and employees identified by the Screening Committee

who may be displaced as a consequence of realignment or
streamlining of work processes, regardless of whether or not they
meet the age and service requirements of #1 above. Management,
through the Sector Heads, shall so advise said officials and employees
in writing to apply immediately.

C. ERIP IV INCENTIVES

1. The basic incentive [is] computed as follows:

Highest Basic Monthly Salary x 1.50 x Length of Gov't. Service

(As of date of application) (Factor) in Gratuity Months

xx xx

2. A service [a]ward of P4,000.00 per actual year of service in the

government
 Decision 15 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

3. An additional incentive for availees who choose to retire under

RA 660 68 (Magic 87) computed as follows:

a. Estimated retirement benefit under RA 1616 69 :

Gratuity Estimate + Premium Refund Estimates (Personal share

plus interest and government share without interest).

b. Less: Lump sum annuity (discounted amount) paid by GSIS

under RA 660

c. Difference x 150%

xx xx

H. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

xx xx

2. The grant of ERIP IV incentives is without prejudice to the

retiree's entitlement to:

a) the regular retirement benefit under any of the existing GSIS

retirement laws; and

b) the payment of the money value of leave credit (MVLC)

balance, if any, under Bank policies. 70

When COA disallowed the ERIP IV-2003 on the finding that it was a
supplementary retirement benefit prohibited under the Teves Retirement Law,
it cited items C.3. and H.2. ofDBP Circular No. 15 as mentioned above. The
COA concluded that: "[t]he additional incentive given to the availees
constitutes additional or supplemental retirement benefits. Such incentive
augments the benefits that a retiring employee would have received under the
GSIS retirement laws." 71

In contrast, DBP argues that based on the objectives stated in the

guidelines, the ERIP IV is not a supplementary retirement plan. According to
DBP, "[t]he purpose of an early retirement incentive plan is to encourage,
induce or motivate employees to voluntarily retire early on account of a
reorganization or streamlining to achieve economy and efficiency.
Meanwhile, a supplementary retirement plan x x x has for its purpose
rewarding the employee for his loyalty and lengthy service in order to help
him or her enjoy the remaining years of his life." 72

68
AN ACT TO AMEND COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-SIX ENTITLED 'AN
ACT TO CREATE AND ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, TO PROVIDE FOR ITS
ADMINISTRATION, AND TO APPROPRIATE THE NECESSARY FUNDS THEREFOR' AND TO PROVIDE
RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
69
AN ACT FURTHER AMENDING SECTION TWELVE OF COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED
EIGHTY-SIX, AS AMENDED, BY PRESCRIBING TWO OTHER MODES OF RETIREMENT AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
70
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. I, pp. 82-85. Additional emphasis supplied.
71
Id. at 67.
72
Id. at 25.

~
 Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

In this regard, the case of GSJS v. COA 73 is instructive. In that case, the
COA disallowed GSIS' Employees Loyalty Incentive Plan, renamed as
Retirement/Financial Plan (RFP), for violating the prohibition in the Teves
Retirement Law on supplemental retirement schemes. Therein, the Court
made the following pronouncements regarding early retirement incentive
plans:

It is true that under Section 4l(n) of Republic Act No. 8291, GSIS
is expressly granted the power to adopt a retirement plan and/or financial
assistance for its employees, but a closer look at the provision readily shows
that this power is not absolute. It is qualified by the words "early,"
"incentive," and "for the purpose of retirement." The retirement plan must
be an early retirement incentive plan and such early retirement incentive
plan or financial assistance must be for the purpose of retirement.

According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary,

"early" means "occurring before the expected or usual time," while
"incentive" means "serving to encourage, rouse, or move to action," or
"something that constitutes a motive or spur."

It is clear from the foregoing that Section 41 (n) of Republic Act No.
8291 contemplates a situation wherein GSIS, due to a reorganization, a
streamlining of its organization, or some other circumstance, which
calls for the termination of some of its employees, must design a plan to
encourage, induce, or motivate these employees, who are not yet
qualified for either optional or compulsory retirement under our laws,
to instead voluntarily retire. This is the very reason why under the law,
the retirement plan to be adopted is in reality an incentive scheme to
encourage the employees to retire before their retirement age. 74

As can be deduced from above, in determining whether a retirement

plan is indeed an early retirement incentive plan (as opposed to a prohibited
supplementary retirement plan), the primary consideration is the objective.

In GSJS v. COA, the objective of the RFP was "[t]o motivate and reward
employees for meritorious, faithful, and satisfactory service." 75 The Court
ruled that its purpose was not to encourage GSIS' employees to retire before
the retirement age, but to augment the benefits they would receive. 76

In stark contrast, the general objective of DBP's ERIP IV is to "ensure

the vitality of the Bank for the next ten (10) years and make it attuned to the
continuing advances in banking technology." 77 Specifically, the purposes of
the ERIP IV are to: ( 1) infuse new talents/skills/insights into the Bank through
the entry/promotion of younger corps of personnel; (2) enable the Bank to
attain cost savings in its personnel budget; and (3) create new opportunities
for career advancement in the Bank. 78

73
674 Phil. 578 (2011).
74
Id. at 600. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; emphasis in the original omitted.
75
Id. at 584, 601.
76
Id. at 601.
77
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. I, p. 82.
78 Id.
 Decision 17 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

Thus, judging from the stated objectives of the ERIP IV, the same
should be considered as an early retirement incentive plan and not a
supplemental retirement plan.

However, in the same case of GSJS v. COA, which the COA cites in the
instant petition, 79 the Court made a pronouncement that in addition to being
based on a reorganization, a valid early retirement incentive plan must not be
offered to employees who are already qualified to retire, either optionally or
compulsorily. 80 To note, under R.A. 8291 or the GSJS Act, the employees
qualified to retire are those who have rendered at least 15 years of service and
is, upon retirement, at least 60 years old (for voluntary retirement) or 65 years
old (for compulsory retirement). 81

It should be noted that the assailed retirement plan in GSIS v. COA is

not on all fours with ERIP IV. The Implementing Policies of the GSIS RFP
states that "[t]o be entitled to the plan, the employee must be qualified to retire
with 5[-]year lump sum under RA 660 or RA 8291 or had previously retired
under applicable retirement laws." 82 Read with its stated objective of
motivating and rewarding employees for meritorious, faithful, and
satisfactory service, 83 the GSIS RFP was undoubtedly a supplementary
retirement plan. It cannot be considered as an early retirement incentive plan
because the only employees entitled thereto are those already qualified to
retire or had previously retired - no reorganization or streamlining is
involved. As the Court held therein:

xx x [The GSIS RFP's] very objective, "[t]o motivate and reward

employees for meritorious, faithful, and satisfactory service," contradicts
the nature of an early retirement incentive plan, or a financial
assistance plan, which involves a substantial amount that is given to
motivate employees to retire early. Instead, it falls exactly within the
purpose of a retirement benefit, which is a form of reward for an
employee's loyalty and lengthy service, in order to help him or her enjoy
the remaining years of his life.

Furthermore, to be able to apply for the GSIS RFP, one!!!.!!§.! be

qualified to retire under Republic Act No. 660 or Republic Act No.
8291, or must have previously retired under our existing retirement
laws. This only means that the employees covered by the GSIS RFP were
those who were already eligible to retire or had already retired. Certainly,
79
Id. at 635-636.
80
See GS/S v. COA, supra note 73, at 604.
81
SEC. 13. Retirement Benefits. - xx x
xx xx
(b) Unless the service is extended by appropriate authorities, retirement shall be compulsory
for an employee at sixty-five (65) years of age with at least fifteen (15) years of service: Provided, That
ifhe has less than fifteen ( 15) years of service, he may be allowed to continue in the service in accordance
with existing civil service rules and regulations.
SEC. 13-A. Conditions for Entitlement. - A member who retires from the service shall be
entitled to the benefits enumerated in paragraph (a) of Section 13 hereof: Provided, That:
(I) he has rendered at least fifteen (15) years of service;
(2) he is at least sixty (60) years of age at the time ofretirement; and
(3) he is not receiving a monthly pension benefit from permanent total disability.
82
GSJS v. COA, supra note 73, at 585. Underscoring supplied.
83
Id. at 584.
 Decision 18 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

this is not included in the scope of "an early retirement incentive plan
or financial assistance for the purpose of retirement."

The fact that GSIS changed the name from "Employees Loyalty
Incentive Plan" to "Retirement/Financial Plan" does not change its essential
nature. A perusal of the plan shows that its purpose is not to
encourage GSIS's employees to retire before their retirement age, but
to augment the retirement benefits they would receive under our
present laws. Without a doubt, the GSIS RFP is a supplementary
retirement plan, which is prohibited by the Teves Retirement Law. 84

In contrast, DBP's ERIP IV is not limited to employees who are

qualified to retire or those who have previously retired. Rather, it is open to
(1) officials and employees aged 50 or above with at least 15 years of service;
and (2) others who may be displaced as a consequence of realignment or
streamlining of work processes, regardless of their age or years of service. 85
Coupled with its general objective of reorganization and streamlining, it can
be concluded that ERIP IV still falls within the definition of an early
retirement incentive plan. The fact that those who are qualified to retire may
also be covered does not negate its classification as an early retirement
incentive plan. Again, the primary consideration should be the purpose of the
plan. Hence, there is merit in the following averments made by DBP:

Clearly, an employee who is as young as 50 years old but has served

15 years in the government may avail of the ERIP IV. When the employee
leaves the Bank, he is not yet qualified to receive the retirement benefits
offered by GSIS. Under R.A. No. 8291, to qualify for retirement, the
employee must, not only have rendered at least 15 years of service, he must
also be at least 60 years of age upon retirement.

In fact, for the availees of the ERIP IV in the years 2003-2006,

i.e., those covered by the Notice of Disallowance, 335 were not yet
qualified to retire under the GSIS, 117 of whom are aged 50 years old
and below.

xx xx
It is elementary to state that unless one is compelled to retire by
reason of compulsory retirement, the decision to retire and when to
retire rest[s] in the employee concerned. He or she may continue to work
until the law requires him to leave government service.

Even assuming for argument's sake that a few, some[,] or all of

the availees of the ERIP IV are eligible to retire under GSIS retirement
laws, it does not change the fact that ERIP IV was adopted and
implemented to induce them to retire early which otherwise they would
not have decided to [do] if they were not offered the incentives.

Unlike under compulsory retirement, the decision to retire under

the ERIP IV was voluntary on the part of the employees who were
aware that, more than the incentives to be received, their action would
promote the objectives that DBP sought to achieve - streamlining, cost-
savings, and infusion of young blood.

84 GS/Sv. COA, supra note 73, at 601. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; emphasis in the original omitted.
85
Rollo (G .R. No. 210922), Vol. I, p. 82.
 Decision 19 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

x x x [T]he ERIP IV induced the employees by way of incentives to

retire before they were required to retire compulsorily, i.e., before their
expected or usual time for retirement. Indeed, a 55-year old ERIP IV availee
could work ten (I 0) more years in DBP and the latter cannot command him
to retire before that time.

Contrary to COA's assertion, the fact that ERIP IV is available to

employees eligible to retire under the GSIS retirement laws is not
inconsistent with the nature of an early retirement plan. If the ERIP IV's
purpose is to encourage DBP employees to retire under GSIS laws earlier
than they would have been compelled to in order to achieve DBP's purpose
of cost savings and allow the infusion of "young blood", then it is, in fact,
an early retirement plan. 86

Still, the COA insists that the ERIP IV violates the Teves Retirement
Law by increasing the benefits of retiring employees beyond what is allowed
under the GSIS retirement laws. According to the COA, the fact that retirees
would be entitled to the regular benefits under GSIS laws, on top of what they
would receive under ERIP IV, clearly constitutes supplementary retirement
benefits, which is a form of double compensation. 87 DBP counters that ERIP
IV is in the form of a separation pay resulting from a reorganization; hence,
the availees are not precluded from claiming benefits under existing
retirement laws despite receiving benefits from the ERIP IV. 88

DBP's averments are not novel. There have already been cases decided
by the Court wherein it was held that those who avail of early retirement
incentive plans may still avail of benefits under existing retirement laws. Said
cases have also recognized the benefits under an early retirement incentive
plan as a form of separation pay.

In Larano v. COA 89 (Larano) the COA denied the claim for retirement
benefits under R.A. 1616 of petitioners-retirees from the Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) after they had received their
benefits under MWSS' Revised Early Retirement Incentive Package (Revised
ERIP). The Court partially reversed the COA, ruling that petitioners who were
affected by the reorganization of MWSS and qualified to retire under R.A.
1616 are entitled to receive their retirement benefits thereunder,
notwithstanding their receipt of benefits under the Revised ERIP ofMWSS. 90

The pronouncement in Larano had been affirmed in the subsequent case

of Herrera v. National Power Corporation, 91 where the Court also classified
the MWSS' Revised ERIP as a form of separation pay, to wit:

86
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 769-771. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; emphasis and
underscoring in the original omitted.
87
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 1, p. 637.
88
See id. at 22-24.
89
565 Phil. 271 (2007).
90
Id. at 290, 291.
91
623 Phil. 383 (2009).
 Decision 20 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

We are, of course, aware that in Larano v. Commission on Audit, we

held that employees, who were separated from the service because of the
reorganization of the [MWSS] and Local Waterworks and Utilities
Administration (L WUA) pursuant to RA No. 8041, were entitled to both
a separation package and retirement benefits.

In Larano, however, the Early Retirement Incentive Plan

submitted to and approved by then President Fidel V. Ramos explicitly
provided for a separation package that would be given over and above
the existing retirement benefits. Therein lies the fundamental difference.
Hence, unlike in this case, there was specific authority for the grant of both
separation pay and retirement benefits. 92

Further, in Betoy, the Court explained that the receipt of retirement

benefits does not bar the retiree from receiving separation pay, stating that "a
separation pay at the time of the reorganization of the [National Power
Corporation] and retirement benefits at the appropriate future time are two
separate and distinct entitlements."93 The Court therein clarified that
entitlement of qualified employees to receive separation pay and retirement
benefits is not covered by the Constitutional proscription on double
compensation. 94 This is because separation pay and retirement benefits are
different entitlements as they have different legal bases, different sources of
funds, and different intents. 95

As applied to the instant case, the ERIP IV partakes the form of a

separation pay in that it is given to employees who are affected by the
reorganization and streamlining of DBP. To recall, separation pay is given to
an employee in cases under Articles 298 96 and 299 97 of the Labor Code.
Specifically, these involve the installation of labor-saving devices,
redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses, closing or cessation of operation
of establishment, or in case the employee suffers from a disease such that his
continued employment is prohibited by law. 98 By analogy, the objective of

92
Id. at 402. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; emphasis and underscoring in original omitted.
93
Supra note 54, at 251-252.
94
Id. at 253.
95
Id. at 255.
96
ART. 298. [283] Closure of Establishment and Reduction of Personnel. - The employer may also
terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy,
retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or
undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving
a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one ( 1) month before
the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or
redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his
one (I) month pay or to at least one (I) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case
of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or
undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent
to one (I) month pay or at least one-half (I /2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.
A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (I) whole year.
97
ART. 299. [284] Disease as Ground for Termination. - An employer may terminate the services of an
employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is
prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided,
That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (I) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month
salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being
considered as one (I) whole year.
98
Arc-Men Food Industries Corp. v. NLRC. 436 Phil. 371, 380-38 I (2002).
 Decision 21 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

ERIP IV is similar to those grounds for termination under Article 298 of the
Labor Code on Closure ofEstablishment and Reduction ofPersonnel.

To reiterate, retirement benefits and separation pay are not mutually

exclusive. "Retirement benefits are a form of reward for an employee's loyalty
and service to an employer and are earned under existing laws, CBAs,
employment contracts and company policies. On the other
hand, separation pay is that amount which an employee receives at the time
of his severance from employment, designed to provide the employee with
the wherewithal during the period that he is looking for another employment
and is recoverable only in instances enumerated under Articles 283 and 284
of the Labor Code or in illegal dismissal cases when reinstatement is not
feasible. " 99

Thus, considering that the ERIP IV is analogous to separation pay, then

the grant of benefits under it along with the grant of benefits under other
retirement laws should not be considered as a form of double compensation.

Authority of the DBP Board

Despite the foregoing pronouncements, even if the Court were to

classify the ERIP IV not as a valid early retirement incentive plan but as a
prohibited supplementary retirement plan, the same should not have been
disallowed by the COA on the basis of the Teves Retirement Law. This has
already been settled in DBP v. COA, the relevant portions of which are quoted
below:

Even assuming, however, that the [DBP's Special Loan Program

(SLP)] constitutes a supplementary retirement plan, RA 4968 [or the Teves
Retirement Law) does not apply to the case at bar. The DBP Charter,
which took effect on 14 February 1986, expressly authorizes
supplementary retirement plans "adopted by and effective in" DBP, thus:

SEC. 34. Separation Benefits. -All those who shall

retire from the service or are separated therefrom on account
of the reorganization of the Bank under the provisions of this
Charter shall be entitled to all gratuities and benefits
provided for under existing laws and/or supplementary
retirement plans adopted by and effective in the Bank:
Provided, that any separation benefits and incentives which
may be granted by the Bank subsequent to June 1, 1986,
which may be in addition to those provided under existing
laws and previous retirement programs of the Bank prior to
the said date, for those personnel referred to in this section
shall be funded by the National Government; Provided,
further, that, any supplementary retirement plan adopted
by the Bank after the effectivity of this Chapter shall
require the prior approval of the Minister of Finance.

99
Goodyear Philippines, Inc. v. Angus, 746 Phil. 668, 681 (2014). Italics supplied.
 Decision 22 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

xx xx

SEC. 37. Repealing Clause. - All acts, executive

orders, administrative orders, proclamations, rules and
regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with any of the
provisions of this charter are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly. (Italics supplied)

Being a special and later law, the DBP Charter prevails over RA
4968. The DBP originally adopted the SLP in 1983. The Court cannot
strike down the SLP now based on RA 4968 in view of the subsequent
DBP Charter authorizing the SLP. 100

Despite this ruling, the COA insists that the Teves Retirement Law still
applies to DBP, citing the following pronouncements in GSJS v. COA:
x x x unless the intention to revoke is clear and manifest, the abrogation or
repeal of a law cannot be assumed. The repealing clause contained
in Republic Act No. 8291 is not an express repealing clause because it fails
to identify or designate the statutes that are intended to be repealed. It is
actually a clause, which predicated the intended repeal upon the condition
that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior laws.

Since Republic Act No. 8291 made no express repeal or abrogation of the
provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 186 as amended by the
Teves Retirement Law, the reliance of the petitioners on its general
repealing clause is erroneous. The failure to add a specific repealing clause
in Republic Act No. 8291 indicates that the intent was not to repeal any
existing law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists
in the terms of the new and old law[s]. 101

The contention is without merit.

In the quoted portion itself, it states that "[t]he failure to add a specific
repealing clause x x x indicates that the intent was not to repeal any existing
law, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the terms
of the new and old laws." 102 Hence, while implied repeals are indeed
disfavored, such would still occur if two laws are clearly irreconcilable and
inconsistent.

In the instant case, there is an irreconcilable inconsistency between the

Teves Retirement Law and the DBP Charter because while the former
prohibits supplementary retirement plans, the latter expressly authorizes
supplementary retirement plans. As unequivocally held in DBP v. COA, the
DBP Charter prevails over the Teves Retirement Law not only because it is a
later law but also because it is a special law. To recall, it is a rule in statutory
construction that a special law prevails over a general law, regardless of the
laws' respective dates of passage. 103
100
DBP v. COA, supra note 47, at 82-83. Additional emphasis and underscoring supplied.
101 Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 1, p. 258, citing GSJS v. COA, supra note 73, at 598. Emphasis in the
original omitted.
102
GS/S v. COA, id. Underscoring supplied.
3
to De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017, 843 SCRA I, 160.
 Decision 23 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

Thus, based on the DBP Charter, the Board is authorized to provide a

supplementary retirement plan. However, such authority is by no means
unbridled. The Charter also states that there should be a prior approval by the
Secretary of Finance. In this regard, the COA argues that even assuming that
the DBP Board is authorized by its Charter to implement supplementary
retirement benefits, the disallowance of ERIP IV is still proper in view of the
absence of prior approval by the Secretary of Finance.

The COA is correct in saying that the prior approval of the Secretary of
Finance is necessary for the validity ofDBP's supplementary retirement plan.
Nevertheless, it is already held that ERIP IV is not a supplementary retirement
plan. Hence, the prior approval of the Secretary of Finance is not necessary.

In this regard, it is worthy to mention that as a result of the ND, DBP

indeed sought approval ofERIP IV from the Secretary of Finance. In a letter 104
dated January 14, 2009 addressed to the DBP President, the Secretary of
Finance himself opined that the requirement of prior approval by the
Department of Finance is inapplicable. Still, the Secretary of Finance went on
to state that:

In any event, in our exercise of administrative supervision over DBP, .!!.!:

evaluated the subject ERIPs, and found the same to be factually and
legally proper and in order. We believe that the authority of the DBP to
adopt, approve and implement the ERIPs is clearly provided for by
Section 13, in relation to Section 9(a) of its Charter. Accordingly, this
Department interposes no objection to the adoption, approval and
implementation of the subject ERIPs by the DBP Board. 105

Additionally, DBP also sent a letter 106 to then President Arroyo to seek
confirmation of the DBP Board's authority to approve a compensation plan
for its personnel. The letter contains the following portions of Board
Resolution No. 0045, which was approved by the President:

THEREFORE, be it resolved, as it is hereby resolved, to seek

CONFIRMATION by the Office of the President of the Philippines of the
power and authority of the DBP Board of Directors, independently of M.O.
No. 20, to approve and allow the implementation and subsequent
refinements of DBP's Compensation Plan, including but not limited to the
following specific components of the Plan:

xx xx

4) Implementation of DBP's Early Retirement Incentive

Program (ERIP), the adoption and implementation of which has
been recognized by the DBM as compliance with the government's
rationalization plan as mandated by Executive Order No. 366 and

104
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. I, p. 115.
105
Id. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
106
Id. at 178-179.

~
 Decision 24 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

by the Department of Finance as within the DBP Board's authority

xx x[.]101

The above-mentioned DBM recognition pertains to DBP's request for

consideration of its rehabilitation program and organization refinements as
substantial compliance to E.0. 366 or the Strategic Review of the Operations
and Organizations of the Executive Branch. This request was granted through
a letter 108 from the DBM dated March 16, 2007 which states in part:
xx x the Bank's streamlined structure, staffing pattern, and work procedures
have contributed to the improvement of service delivery and growth of net
income and total assets.

We recognize that the Bank's periodic and continuing efforts at an

internal reorganization, together with a special separation package, has
helped maintain its competitive position and good financial standing in
the banking industry.

Foregoing considered, your request is hereby approved and DBP may be

exempted from the preparation of a Rationalization Plan under EO 366. 109

In sum, DBP is authorized by its Charter to provide a supplementary

retirement plan, subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of Finance.
Nonetheless, since ERIP IV is not a supplementary retirement plan, prior
approval by the Secretary of Finance is not necessary. Its absence, therefore,
cannot invalidate ERIP IV. In any event, it is clear from the foregoing that the
Secretary of Finance, through his own study and evaluation of the ERIP IV,
interposed no objection "to the adoption, approval and implementation of the
subject ERIPs by the DBP Board" as they were found "to be factually and
legally proper and in order" as "clearly provided for by Section 13, in relation
to Section 9(a)" of DBP's Charter. 110

Thus, the ineluctable conclusion is that COA erred in disallowing the

benefits under ERIP IV-2003.

On the Petition for Mandamus and the

Compromise Agreement

As regards the Petition for Mandamus, the Court clarifies that what is
involved is ERIP IV-2010, not ERIP IV-2003 which is the subject of the
Petition for Certiorari. In the former petition, the petitioners-retirees pray for
the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the DBP Board to release their
benefits under ERIP IV-2010. To recall, DBP held in abeyance the final
implementation ofERIP IV-2010 pending the resolution of the ND over ERIP
IV-2003. 111

107
Id. Emphasis and underscoring supplied; italics omitted.
108
Id.atll4.
109 Id.
110
Id.atll5.
111
Seerol/o(G.R.No.207281),Vol. l,p.15.
 Decision 25 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

Petitioners-retirees claim that that they have established a clear right to

the incentives under ERIP IV-2010. According to them, the DBP Board
unlawfully neglected or refused to perform their duties under the ERIP IV-
2010 and R.A. 10154. 112

Petitioners-retirees also harp on the fact that ERIP IV-2010 was not
disallowed by the COA. They insist that the disallowance for ERIP IV-2003
will not affect the validity of ERIP IV-2010 and DBP cannot use such
disallowance as basis for refusing the release of retirement incentives to
them. 113

For their part, the DBP Board maintains that petitioners-retirees have
not shown a well-defined, clear, and certain right to warrant the grant of
benefits under ERIP IV-2010 in light of the COA's disallowance of the entire
ERIP IV program. Moreover, the act sought by petitioners-retirees to be done
is not ministerial and the DBP Board cannot be compelled by mandamus to
release the benefits. At any rate, the DBP Board claims that they acted in
accordance with their duty to exercise extraordinary diligence in their
treatment of DB P's properties. 114

However, the Court notes that DBP and the petitioners-retirees

including the petitioners-movants 115 have entered into a Compromise
Agreement sometime in February 2018, 116 which is reproduced below:

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

This Compromise Agreement made and entered into this _ day of

____ 2018, in Makati City, by and between:

THE CY 2011-2012 RETIREES OF THE

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
UNDER ITS EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE
PROGRAM-IV who are the petitioners ofSC-G.R. SP. NO.
207281, entitled "Elaine R. Abanto, et al. vs. The Board of
Directors of the Development Bank of the Philippines",
represented herein by their attorney-in-fact, Atty. Howard
M. Calleja, hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioning ERIP-
IV Retirees";
-- and --

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL[I]PPINES, a

government financial institution duly organized, existing
and operating pursuant to Executive Order No. 81, as
amended by Republic Act No. 8523, otherwise known as the

112
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, pp. 867-868.
113
Id. at 841.
114
Id. at 889-899.
115
Rollo (G.R. No. 207281), Vol. 2, pp. 1001-1002. Subject to a favorable resolution of their Motion for
Inclusion as Petitioners to G.R. No. 207281 dated October 19, 2017.
116
Rollo (G.R. No. 210922), Vol. 2, p. 1065. Actual date not stated in the rollo.
Decision 26 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

1986 Revised Charter of the DBP, with principal office at

DBP Building, Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue corner Makati
A venue, Makati City, represented herein by its President and
CEO Cecilia C. Borromeo, hereinafter referred to as "DBP";

WITNESSETH: That -

WHEREAS, the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees retired from DBP

under its ERIP-IV Program in CY 2011-2012.

WHEREAS, in 2013 DBP suspended the implementation of the

ERIP-IV Program and did not release the early retirement incentives of the
petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees due to, among others, the issuance by the
Commission on Audit (COA) of a Notice of Disallowance calling into
question the validity and legality of the entire ERIP-IV Program.

WHEREAS, in order to compel the release of the retirement

incentives, the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees filed a mandamus petition before
the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 207821, entitled "Elaine R. Abanto,
et al. vs. The Board ofDirector ofDBP." This petition has been pending since
20 June 2013, and in that time some of the petitioners have already passed
away and are now represented by their respective heirs, while the majority
who are now senior citizens - some of whom are suffering from various
illnesses - have limited opportunities for productive employment and are still
waiting for the release of their retirement incentives.

WHEREAS, COA's declaration of invalidity of DBP's ERIP-IV

Program is the subject ofDBP's Petition for Review on Certiorari docketed
as G.R. No. 210922, entitled "Development Bank of the Philippines vs.
Commission on Audit", which is consolidated with the above-described
mandamus petition. In an Order dated 18 February 2014, the Honorable
Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining COA from
implementing its assailed decision against DBP's ERIP-IV Program.

WHEREAS, DBP's adoption and implementation of its ERIP-IV

Program has been repeatedly approved/confirmed and acknowledged as
valid and legal by the Executive Department, as shown under a letter dated
16 March 2007 issued by the Department of Budget and Management
(DBM), a letter dated 14 January 2009 by the Secretary of Finance, and by
the 22 April 2010 confirmation by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

WHEREAS, the President of the Philippines on 22 March 2016

issued Executive Order No. 203 series of 2016 [Adopting a Compensation
and Position Classification System (CPCS) and a General Index of
Occupational Services (!OS) for the GOCC Sector Covered by Republic
Acts No. 10149 and For Other Purposes] which, among others, provides for
an early retirement incentive plan for government employees and early
retirement incentives in addition to retirement benefits under existing laws.

WHEREAS, E.O. 203 series of 2016 is an explicit recognition by

the Executive Department that an early retirement incentive plan providing
additional retirement incentives is not invalid per se and is not repugnant to
law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

WHEREAS, E.O. 203 series of 2016 supports the position that

DBP's ERIP-IV Program is valid and legal by and of itself, in addition to it
already having the stamp of approval of the DBM, Secretary of Finance and
President of the Philippines.
Decision 27 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

WHEREAS, retirement benefits serve a humanitarian purpose of

providing for the sustenance and, hopefully, even comfort, of retirees when
they no longer have the stamina or capability to earn a livelihood.

WHEREAS, considering that ERIP-IV is a retirement program

repeatedly approved and acknowledged as valid by Executive fiat, most
recently through Executive (sic) E.O. 203 series of2016, and in view of the
policy favoring the liberal interpretation of retirement laws in favor of those
who are intended to be benefited, and for humanitarian grounds considering
the advanced age of the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees, and in order to put
an end to their litigation in G.R. No. 207281, DBP, through its current Board
of Directors, has agreed to release the ERIP-IV incentives of the petitioning
ERIP-IV Retirees, subject to the prior approval of this Compromise
Agreement by the Supreme Court.
WHEREAS, DBP President and CEO Cecilia C. Borromeo was
duly authorized under Resolution No. 0074 series of 2017 to enter into and
sign this Compromise Agreement; and the following terms and conditions
of compromise are in line with the instructions given by the DBP Board of
Directors in Resolution No. 0282 series of 2017.

WHEREAS, in a letter dated 14 July 2017, COA through its

Chairperson Michael C. Aguinaldo, said that "[ c]onsidering that the issue
on the propriety and/or legality of the disallowance on the retirement
benefits under the ERIP is litis pendentia, this Commission deems it prudent
to await the final decision of the Supreme Court on the case or on the
proposed compromise agreement before taking any further action on
(the) proposal."

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, and

the covenants hereinafter provided, the parties agree as follows:

1. Upon the execution of this Agreement, the parties shall submit

this Compromise Agreement for the approval of the Supreme Court En
Banc in the consolidated cases docketed as G.R. No. 210922 and G.R.
207281, and the judgment on the Compromise Agreement rendered by the
Honorable Court shall be final and executory, and no further appeal shall be
made by either party.

2. DBP shall release the full amount of the petitioning ERIP-IV

Retirees' early retirement incentive under the ERIP-IV Program, without
any interest whatsoever to their duly authorized representative, Atty.
Howard M. Calleja, subject to his submission of a Special Power of
Attorney executed by the Retirees, under the following conditions:
(a) Release of the subject incentive shall be within ~wenty
(20) working days from the receipt of the Supreme Court's
resolution approving the Compromise Agreement and the
submission by the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees of individual
Quitclaims/Releases and Waivers as well as complete documents
relative to their availment of the ERIP-IV Program.

(b) It is understood that ERIP-IV incentives to be released

shall be net of any outstanding payables that the petitioning ERIP-
IV Retirees owe DBP, the DBP Provident Fund and the DBP
Cooperative Credit Union; as well as any specific employee benefit
received during their employment which is presently the subject of
COA disallowances.
Decision 28 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

(c) The computation and determination by the DBP Human

Resources Management Group of net ERIP-IV incentives to be
released to the ERIP-IV Retirees shall be final, binding and
conclusive upon the parties.

3. In consideration of their receipt of their ERIP-IV incentives, each

of the petitioning ERIP-IV Retirees hereby agree to unconditionally and
voluntarily release, waive and forever discharge DBP, its stockholders,
officers, directors, agents and its employees, from any and all claims, demands,
obligations, liabilities, indebtedness, and causes of action of every type, kind,
nature, description or character, known or unknown, direct or indirect, whether
civil, criminal or administrative, which arose as a result of, or in connection
with or otherwise relating to their employment with DBP, including any and
all claims for PERA/AdCom differential and similar benefits, their intention
being to completely and absolutely free DBP and its officers, employees, and
agents from such claims, demands, or causes of action.

4. The Quitclaim/Release and Waiver submitted by the Retirees

pursuant to par. 2 (a) and as stated in par. 3 may be pleaded for the dismissal
of any pending case, and as a bar to future suits that may be brought in any
court, office or agency of whatever jurisdiction.

5. The parties acknowledge that they have read and understood the
contents of this Agreement and that they have signed the same willingly,
voluntarily, and with full knowledge of their rights and obligations.

6. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties

hereto with respect to the subject matter and shall super[ s]ede any prior
expression of intent or understanding with respect to the transaction. This
Agreement may not be amended or modified, except by written agreement
of the parties hereto.

7. This Agreement shall be binding upon and be enforceable by the

parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.

8. If any one of the provisions contained in this Agreement or

documents executed in connection herewith shall be declared invalid,
illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and
enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in any way be
affected or impaired.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands

on the date and place first above-written.

THE CY 2011-2012 PETITIONER- DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE

RETIREES OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES UNDER ITS EARLY
RETIREMENT INCENTIVE
PROGRAM-IV

Represented by: Represented by:

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
ATTY. HOWARD M. CALLEJA CECILIA C. BORROMEO
Counsel President and CEO

M
 Decision 29 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

Signed in the presence of:

(Sgd.) (Sgd.)
Atty. Daniel [indecipherable] Atty. Rene A. Gaerlan

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
xxxx 117

In their Manifestation and Motion for Resolution with Joint Motion for
Judgment Based on Compromise Agreement 118 dated March 22, 2018, the
petitioners-retirees and DBP pray that:

1. The Honorable Court resolve the consolidated cases G.R. Nos.

207281 and 210922; and

2. In the event of a decision in favor of DBP in G .R. No. 210922,

the parties pray for the Honorable Court to approve the attached
Compromise Agreement and that judgment be rendered in accordance
therewith, without pronouncement as to the cost of suit. 119

In the same Motion, the parties acknowledge that "COA is inevitably

an indispensable party to a full and complete resolution of the consolidated
cases and as such, must be given an opportunity to express its position for or
against the subject compromise." 120 Pursuant to this, DBP wrote a letter to
COA.

For its part, the COA, thru Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo, sent a
letter in reply to DBP, the pertinent portions of which are reproduced below:

This refers to your letter dated 6 July 2017 forwarding, for the
consideration of this Office, the Opinion of the Office of the Government
Corporate Counsel (OGCC) on the proposed Compromise Agreement
between the [DBP] and the [petitioners-retirees] in "Abanto, et al. v. Board
of Directors of DBP, G.R. No. 207281."

In its Opinion dated 10 May 2017, the OGCC concluded that

"DBP may enter into a compromise agreement with the petitioners but
subject to the express consent of the COA and approval of the Supreme
Court." The OGCC stated that COA is an indispensable party to any
compromise agreement between the petitioners and DBP and thus,
should be a signing party to the proposed agreement.

We take note of the fact that G.R. No. 207281 is consolidated with
G.R. No. 210922, a case initiated by DBP against COA questioning the
[ND] against the release of retirement benefits to an earlier batch of retirees
under a similar [ERIP]. It is this very ND that prompted the DBP to withhold

117
Id. at 1021-1029. Citations omitted.
118
Id. at 1015-1020.
119
Id. at 1016.
120 Id.
 Decision 30 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

the release of the retirement benefits of Abanto, et al. leading to the filing
of G.R.207281 before the Supreme Court.

Considering that the issue on the propriety and/or legality of the

disallowance on the retirement benefits under the ERIP is litis
pendentia, this Commission deems it prudent to await the final decision
of the Supreme Court on the case or on the proposed compromise
agreement before taking any further action on [the] proposal. 121

However, contrary to the opinion of the OGCC, the Court rules that the
express consent of the COA is not necessary for the validity of the
Compromise Agreement between DBP and the petitioners-retirees, in light of
the decision reached by this Court in this case which upholds the validity of
the ERIPs ofDBP.

In view of the Court's ruling herein that the ERIP IV is valid, there is
nothing that prevents DBP from releasing the benefits under ERIP IV-2010.

Thus, the Court finds the Compromise Agreement legally acceptable,

nothing therein being contrary to laws, morals, good customs, and public
policy, and the same having been freely and intelligently executed by and
between the petitioners-retirees (including petitioners-movants) and DBP,
judicial approval thereof is in order.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari dated February 3, 2014

filed by the Development Bank of the Philippines in G.R. No. 210922 is
GRANTED. The Decision No. 2013-046 dated January 30, 2013 of the
Commission on Audit (COA) which affirmed the Notice of Disallowance
(ND) No. ERIP-2006-007(03-06) dated May 17, 2007 disallowing the
payment of retirement benefits to DBP officials and employees in the total
amountofP747,174,594.28 is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The
Temporary Restraining Order dated February 18, 2014 restraining the COA
from implementing Decision No. 2013-046 and ND No. ERIP-2006-007(03-
06) is made PERMANENT.

Further, in G.R. No. 207281, judgment is hereby rendered in

accordance with the Compromise Agreement between the petitioners-retirees
(including petitioners-movants) and DBP which was submitted to the Comi,
and the parties are enjoined to abide by its terms and conditions.

Furthermore, the Motion for Inclusion as petitioners in G.R. No.

207281 of petitioners-movants Mary Irma D. Lara and Josephine Jaurigue
dated October 19, 2017 is hereby GRANTED.

121
Id. at 1030. Emphasis and underscoring supplied.

~
Decision 31 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

SO ORDERED.

S. CAGUIOA

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

..---- ...,
-~~ (On official leave)
RIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice Associate Justice

(No Part)
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice

ANDRE~iEYES, JR.
Asi~c1la~e Justice

;-;iic.~~
l/~ssociate Justice
RAM~.iHERNANDO
Associate Justice
Decision 32 G.R. Nos. 207281 & 210922

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.