MANILA, Philippines – Thirty-nine retired lawyers from the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) may now claim their multi-million peso benefits after a Quezon City court favored them in their lawsuit against the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).

The Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 230 granted the retired lawyers’ petitions for certiorari and mandamus against a DBM circular that blocked the payment of benefits to the PAO lawyers.

In a 42-page ruling penned by Judge Maria Gilda Loja-Pangilinan, the court directed the DBM to immediately release the P139.9 million retirement gratuity differential to 39 PAO lawyers who retired from service from 2010 to 2014.

The complaint was filed by the PAO lawyers in June 2016, when the DBM released a legal bulletin contesting the payment of benefits to the lawyers. (READ: DBM blocking benefits of PAO lawyers? Both have basis – DOJ)

The DBM’s legal department cited the conflict in two existing laws: Republic Act 94016 or the PAO law provides the same rank, salary grade, allowances, and other emoluments to public attorneys as to public prosecutors, but RA 10071 or the National Prosecution Service law provides that “salaries, allowances and other emoluments herein fixed shall not apply to officers other than those of prosecutors” in the NPS.

The PAO law was enacted in 2007, while the NPS law was enacted in 2010. Because of the two laws, then Budget Secretary Florencio Abad issued circulars in March 2013 declaring that the PAO shall be covered by special retirement laws.

The QC court ruled that it was not within the authority of the DBM to interpret the law but was in fact duty-bound to “harmonize these laws.”

The court also recognized Abad’s 2013 circular and said that the PAO retirees “already acquired a vested right over their retirement benefits which cannot be unilaterally withheld on the basis of a mere legal opinion.”

Abad argued then that the legal contention to the payment of benefits was just a precautionary measure, saying that if it shall be found eventually that the PAO retirees were not entitled to the benefits, not only will they have to refund the amount, they will also be exposed to administrative and criminal liabilities.

According to the court ruling, “it is erroneous on the part of the respondents to foretell doom, and on basis thereof, withhold the retirement benefits.”

This case brings to light the loophole in legislation when two laws are passed with conflicting provisions.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed but the QC court has meanwhile ruled that because there is no specific law or court action which invalidate the provisions, the effects and consequences of both laws shall remain valid.

While the PAO retirees won their benefits claim, they failed to compel the DBM to pay them P400,000 in moral damages and another P400,000 in exemplary damages.

The court said the PAO retirees failed to “prove with honorable degree the actual damage which they have suffered.”

According to PAO, the retirement benefits conflict only underscored the discrimination against them in the legal profession. It said that compared to prosecutors, judges and justices, its lawyers were being treated as “second-class lawyers and citizens.”

The court ruling also offers a moral victory for the public attorneys.

“Much has been said about the dichotomy between being a public attorney and a public prosecutor failing to realize that they are both vital and significant actors in the administration of justice,” the ruling said.

“In their long hours of toil, dedication and hard work to give true meaning to the term ‘public servants’ lies their equality and congruence for which they should be amply awarded and recognized,” it added. – Rappler.com