The Court of Appeals has sided with the retirees of the defunct Integrated National Police and ordered the Department of Budget and Management and the Philippine National Police to immediately release the amount of P3.9 billion representing pension differentials of INP retirees for the period 1991 to 2006.
The CA’s Eleventh Division through Associate Justice Pedro Corales denied the petition filed by the DBM Secretary Florencio Abad and the PNP seeking the issuance of an injunctive writ to stop the Regional Trial Court of Manila City from enforcing several orders it issued in 2014 relative to the pension claims of the INP retirees.
The appellate court sustained the orders issued by the Manila RTC on Feb. 20, 2014 directing the DBM to implement the Supreme Court’s final ruling on May 9, 2007; the May 19, 2014 order denying DBM’s motion for reconsideration of the Feb. 20, 2014 order and directing the issuance of a writ of execution in favor of the INP retirees; and the June 26, 2014 order denying DBM’s motion to recall and quash the writ of execution.
The CA also affirmed the notice to comply, notice of garnishment addressed to the Land Bank of the Philippines and the follow-up on garnishment addressed to LBP.
It ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Manila RTC in issuing the said orders.
“Petitioners dismally failed to discharge their burden. The assailed issuances were not shown to be patently erroneous or done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment warranting their striking down through a petition for certiorari,” the appellate court declared.
“Rather, the same were issued in accordance with pertinent rules and existing jurisprudence, thus, the RTC as well as its Clerk of Court and Sheriff cannot be said to have gravely abused their discretion in issuing the assailed orders, writ of execution, notice to comply and notice of garnishment,” it said.
The appellate court added that the Manila RTC’s ruling was in accordance with the May 9, 2007 decision of the SC which declared that the INP retirees are entitled to the same retirement benefits of the PNP under Republic Act No. 8551 which provides for the reorganization of the law enforcement agency and the modification of its retirement scheme.
Likewise, the SC obliged the concerned government agencies to implement retroactively the proper adjustments on the INP retirees’ retirement and other benefits and to release the same immediately.
The DBM and PNP argued that the amount of P22.9 billion appropriated for the PNP under Republic Act No. 10633 (General Appropriations Act of 2014) does not cover the requirement for the pension differentials from 1991 to 2006.
They added that allowing the use of the funds for a purpose not provided in the appropriations would constitute unlawful release of public funds.
The petitioners argued that all amounts appropriated and released under R.A. 10633 are exempt from garnishment.
However, the appellate court did not give credence to the argument of the DBM and PNP saying that one of the purpose of Congress in appropriating P22.9 billion to PNP is to pay the pension differentials of the INP Retirees pursuant to the May 9, 2007 decision.
“Further, the prohibition under Section 93 of R.A. No. 10633 merely echoes the general rule that government funds are not subject to garnishment or levy in the absence of a corresponding appropriation as required by law,” the CA said.
“However…the general rule does not apply where the funds sought to be levied upon are already allocated by law specifically for the satisfaction of a money judgment against the government, as in this case,” it added.
The controversy arose from the civil case filed by the Manila’s Finest Retirees Association Inc., which represents the retirees of the defunct Integrated National Police.
Associate Justices Sesinando Villon and Rodil Zalameda concurred with the ruling.