A QUEZON City trial court judge has cited the brilliance of Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) chief Persida Rueda-Acosta and deputy chief Ana Lisa Soriano for defending public lawyers’ rights to retirement benefits in a case filed before the judge’s sala.
Judge Maria Gilda Loja-Pangilinan of the Regional Trial Court’s Branch 230 recalled Rueda-Acosta and Soriano’s masterful move when she spoke before 3,000 public attorneys during PAO’s 9th Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Grand Convention late last month at the World Trade Center in Pasay City.
Loja-Pangilinan was referring to the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by PAO before her sala a few years back, which was cleverly defended in court by the top two officials in connection with the benefits that the agency’s retirees must receive in accordance with the existing laws, but were previously disapproved by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
Citing a legal opinion, the DBM said PAO’s retirees did not qualify to receive the same salary and benefits as those from the National Prosecution Service or Napros.
With the two laws — Republic Act 9406 (PAO Law) and RA 10071, Napros Law — at the center of the argument, the judge recalled how Rueda-Acosta and Soriano managed to convince the lower court when they filed the twin petitions instead of a petition for declaratory relief.
“Certiorari under Rule 65, grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; Mandamus, to mandate, to compel. But declaratory relief is more complicated. It’s harder to obtain relief because you are asking the court to interpret the two laws and provide an answer,” the judge said.
“Here is how brilliant the PAO is, Chief (Rueda-Acosta) and Deputy Soriano argued the case. They said: ‘We are not asking for our interpretation of the law, Judge, because as far as we are concerned, the law is clear,’” she said.
The judge said they were right because if they had chosen to file a petition for declaratory relief, they would have admitted their own law was confusing.
Moreover, she said a petition for mandamus has simple requisites.
“You have a legal right. You are entitled to it. And therefore, it must be ministerial for the agencies to perform the function to serve that right. It’s not that brilliant. Did you think of that? That’s how smart they are,” said the judge in reference to the top 2 PAO officials.
In her ruling, Loja-Pangilinan said that in the absence of a judicial declaration that the Napros Law repealed or invalidated the PAO Law, both statutes remain operative.
She cited Section 5 of PAO Law and Section 16 of Napros Law, which must be read together and harmonized to give life to the legislative intent that the ranks, salaries, and benefits would mirror each other.
The lady judge said she received “a bit of flak” over her decision. But she stood by it and has been vindicated by the Court of Appeals’ ruling, which affirmed her verdict in favor of PAO retirees.
She stressed that the basis for receiving PAO’s retirement benefits equal to those under the Napros Law is now firmly established in jurisprudence through the case of PAO versus DBM.
The judge believed that the PAO chief should have the same salary as the chief state prosecutor, as well as state prosecutors and PAO lawyers, down the line, citing RA 9946, which governs the retirement benefits of the judiciary.
Saying retirement is more than mere numbers, the judge emphasized that there is the state’s recognition and final acknowledgement of the commitment and value as government lawyers.
“But justice is not only about deciding cases. In the end, it is also about how we treat those who work and serve for justice,” Loja-Pangilinan told the public attorneys.