THE Court of Appeals has sustained its decision ordering the Department of Budget and Management to release P3.9-billion differential pension of Integrated National Police retirees.
It junked the appeal of the DBM and the PNP to restrain the Regional Trial Court of Manila City from implementing its orders for them to release P3.9 billion representing pension differentials of retirees of the defunct INP for 1991 to 2006.
In a three-page resolution, the CA’s Eleventh Division, through Associate Justice Pedro Corales, upheld its April 29, 2016 decision, which denied the petition filed by the DBM and PNP seeking the issuance of a writ of injunction enjoining the Manila RTC from implementing several orders it issued in 2014 in connection with the pension claims of INP retirees.
It said the DBM and PNP failed to raise new arguments that would warrant the reversal of its decision.
“The motion for reconsideration is a mere reproduction of the arguments raised in the petition. We do not find any bona fide effort on the part of petitioners to present additional matters or reiterate their arguments in a different light,” the CA ruled.
“Thus, there is no need to revisit what was already presented before this Court when we rendered the April 29, 2016 decision,” it said.
Associate Justices Sesinando Villon and Rodil Zalameda concurred with the ruling.
In its April 29 decision, the appellate court affirmed 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 upheld the notice to comply, notice of garnishment addressed to the Land Bank of the Philippines and the follow-up on garnishment addressed to LBP.
The appellate court stressed there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Manila RTC in issuing the said orders.
The CA added the Manila RTC’s ruling was in accordance with the May 9, 2007 decision of the SC which declared 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.
In the same ruling, the SC directed the concerned government agencies to implement retroactively the proper adjustments on the INP retirees’ retirement and other benefits and to release the same immediately.
In opposing the release of the money, the DBM and PNP argued 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.
Besides, the petitioners insisted that all amounts appropriated and released under RA 10633 are exempt from garnishment.
However, the CA did not give credence to the argument of the DBM and PNP, saying one of the purposes 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.
The case stemmed from the civil case filed by the Manila’s Finest Retirees Association Inc., which represents the retirees of the defunct Integrated National Police.