DOMINGO VICENTE, petitioner

Central to this petition for certiorari which assails the decision 0f the
Employees' Compensation Commission

1. The petitioner, Domingo Vicente, was formerly employed as a nursing

attendant at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City.

2. at the age of forty-five, and after having rendered more than twenty-
five years of government service, he applied for optional retirement giving as
reason therefore his inability to continue working as a result of his physical
disability.

3. the petitioner likewise filed (GSIS) an application for "income benefits

claim for payment"

4. applications were accompanied by the necessary supporting papers,

among them being a "Physician's Certification" issued by the petitioner's
attending doctor

5. A certification classifying him as being under "permanent total

disability."

6. The petitioner's application for income benefits claim payment was

granted but only for permanent partial disability (PPD) compensation or for a
period of nineteen months

7. The petitioner requested the General Manager of the GSIS to

reconsider the award given him and prayed that the same be extended
beyond nineteen months invoking the findings of his attending physician, as
indicated in the latter's Certification.

8. As a consequence of his motion for reconsideration, the petitioner was

granted the equivalent of an additional four (4) months benefits

9. Insisting that he (petitioner) should be compensated no less than for

"permanent total disability." It was denied

10. The case was elevated to the respondent Employees Compensation

Commission (ECC).
11. ECC rendered a decision affirming the ruling of the GSIS Employees'
Disability Compensation and dismissed the petitioner's appeal

12. (SUPREME COURT) The petitioner maintains that his disability is

"permanent total" and not "permanent partial" as classified by the
respondent Commission.

13. The petitioner points to the clinical evaluation and certification earlier
averted issued by his attending physicians

14. He likewise contends that contrary to the respondent's ruling, his

subsequent confinement in the hospital from August 31, 1987 to September
6, 1987, when he was found suffering from "CVA probably thrombosis," was
a direct result of his other ailments as previously diagnosed (before his
retirement)

15. On the other hand, the respondent Commission argues that the
petitioner only suffers from "permanent partial disability" and not from
"permanent total disability."

The findings of the petitioner's attending physician is not binding on the

GSIS, nor on the Commission, as the proper evaluation of an employee's
degree of disability exclusively belongs to the GSIS medical experts who
have specialized on the subject.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner is suffering from total permanent or partial

disability

Ruling:

The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the respondent Employees'
Compensation Commission, another one is hereby ENTERED declaring the
petitioner to be suffering from permanent total disability.

The court stressed out stress, its abiding concern for the welfare of
government workers, especially the humble rank and file, whose patience,
industry, and dedication to duty have often gone unheralded, but who, in
spite of very little recognition, plod on dutifully to perform their appointed
tasks.
That is why he sympathy of the law on social security is toward its
beneficiaries, and the law, by its own terms, requires a construction of
utmost liberality in their favor.

FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR., petitioner,

The petition mainly questions the withholding of one-half of petitioner's retirement

benefits.

Facts of the case:

1. On January 26, 1980, petitioner was appointed Chairman of the Commission on

Audit (COA) to serve a term of seven years expiring on January 26, 1987
2. Prior to his appointment, he was acting as chairman of the said agency since
1975
3. So he had been an acting chairman for 5 years before his appointment
4. Before the expiration of his appointment, On December 31, 1985, petitioner
applied for clearance from all money, property and other accountabilities in
preparation for his retirement.
5.  He was able the clearance applied for, which covered the period from 1976 to
December 31, 1985
6. Petitioner sought a second clearance to cover the period from January 1, 1986 to
March 9, 1986
7. All the signatures necessary to complete the second clearance, except that of
Chairman Guingona, were obtained.

8. The petitioner was "cleared from money, property and/or accountability by this
Commission" . Chairman Guingona, however, failed to take any action thereon.

9. Chairman Guingona was replaced by respondent Chairman.

10.The respondent chairman created a committee for the inventory of all

equipment acquired during the tenure of his two predecessors (Tantuinco and
Guingona)

11.respondent Chairman indorsed petitioner's retirement application to (GSIS),

certifying that petitioner was already cleared
12.the inventory committee finally submitted its report, recommending petitioner's
clearance from property accountability inasmuch as there was no showing that
he personally gained from the missing property or was primarily liable for the
loss thereof
13. The respondent chairman then administratively charged the inventory
committee for or exceeding their authority in recommending clearances for
petitioner and Chairman Guingona; and for recommending petitioner's clearance
14.respondent Chairman created a special audit team 
15.and one of its findings is that petitioner may be responsible or accountable for
some questioned transactions 
16.respondent Chairman informed petitioner of the approval of his application for
retirement  however payment of only one-half (½) of the money value of the
benefits due shall be withheld and Payment of the balance of said retirement
benefits shall be subject to the final results of the audit.

Issue

Whether or not the petitoner’s benefits be withheld pending investigation of

monetary responsibility to the commission

Ruling

Regardless of petitioner's monetary liability to the government that may be

discovered from the audit concerning his fiscal responsibility as former COA
Chairman, respondent Chairman cannot withhold the benefits due petitioner under
the retirement laws.

Whatever infirmities or limitations existed in said clearances were cured after

respondent Chairman favorably indorsed petitioner's application for retirement to the
Government Service Insurance System and recommended its approval

Pension in this case is a bounty flowing from the graciousness of the Government
intended to reward past services and, at the same time, to provide the pensioner
with the means with which to support himself and his family.

Well-settled is the rule that retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the
retiree because the intention is to provide for the retiree's sustenance and comfort,
when he is no longer capable of earning his livelihood
It is true that the withholding and application of the amount involved was had under
Section 624 of the Administrative Code

But if the gratuity could not be attached or levied upon execution in view of the
prohibition of Section 3 of Act No. 4051, the appropriation thereof by administrative
action, if allowed, would lead to the same prohibited result and enable the
respondent to do indirectly what they can not do directly under Section 3 of the Act
No. 4051. 

VICE-MAYOR MARCELINA S. ENGLE, Petitioner,

1. Petitioner and private respondent vied for the position of Vice-Mayor of the
Municipality of Babatngon, Province of Leyte in the May 13, 2013 Automated
Synchronized National, Local and ARMM Regional Elections.
2. Petitioner’s late husband, James L. Engle, was originally a candidate for said
contested position; however, he died of cardiogenic shock on February 2,
2013.3 Due to this development, petitioner filed her certificate of
candidacy4 on February 22, 2013 as a substitute candidate for her deceased
spouse.
3. In response, private respondent filed, on February 25, 2013, a Petition to
Deny Due Course and/or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy 5 (COC) of
petitioner arguing in the main that the latter misrepresented that she is
qualified to substitute her husband.
4. It would appear that James L. Engle’s Certificate of Nomination and
Acceptance was signed by Lakas-CMD Leyte Chapter President, Ferdinand
Martin G. Romualdez However, Lakas-CMD failed to submit to the COMELEC
Law Department the authorization of Romualdez to sign the CONAs of Lakas-
CMD candidates in Babatngon as prescribed by Section 6(3) of COMELEC
Resolution No. 9518. Thus, the COMELEC Law Department considered all
Lakas-CMD candidates whose CONAs were signed by Romualdez as
independent candidates
5. Private respondent charged petitioner with violation of Section 15, COMELEC
Resolution No. 9518 which disallows the substitution of an independent
candidate. He argued that petitioner’s declaration that she was a member of
the political party, Lakas-CMD, was intended to deceive the electorate that
she was qualified to substitute her husband. Additionally, private respondent
claimed that “[t]he false representation of the [petitioner] that she is qualified
 for public office consisted of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or
hide a fact that would otherwise render a candidate ineligible
6. In petitioner’s Verified Answer,8 she countered that: (1) the ground relied
upon in private respondent’s petition was not the ground contemplated by
Section 1, Rule 23 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9523; (2) the COMELEC did
not issue an official declaration that petitioner’s husband was an independent
candidate; and (3) James L. Engle’s CONA was signed by an authorized
person acting on behalf of LAKAS-CMD.
7.

Verily, it was publicly known that James L. Engle was a member of Lakas-CMD. As far
as the party and his wife were concerned, James L. Engle, as a member of Lakas-CMD,
may be substituted as a candidate upon his death. There was no evidence on record
that the party or petitioner had notice or knowledge of the COMELEC’s classification of
James L. Engle as an independent candidate prior to February 22, 2013 when petitioner
filed her COC as a substitute for her deceased husband. The only document in the
record indicating that Lakas-CMD had been notified of James L. Engle’s designation as
an independent candidate is the Letter dated March 21, 2013 sent by the COMELEC
Law Department to Romualdez21 stating that James L. Engle was declared an
independent candidate due to the failure of Lakas-CMD to submit the authority of
Romualdez to sign James L. Engle’s CONA to the Law Department as required under
Section 6(3) of COMELEC Resolution No. 9518 and in view thereof petitioner’s COC as
her husband’s substitute was denied due course.