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