Scribd
Upload
285 views

Ligot V Mathay Digest

Ligot served three consecutive terms in the Philippine House of Representatives from 1957 to 1969. During his second term, the salary for congressmen was increased to P32,000 per year by law, but this increase did not apply to those already in office. Upon retirement, Ligot claimed retirement benefits calculated using the increased P32,000 salary. The Court held that allowing retirement benefits based on the increased salary would indirectly increase his compensation during his term, which is prohibited. The increased salary only applied to those elected starting in 1969, so Ligot's claim for benefits using the P32,000 salary could not be sustained.

Uploaded by

mybernal18
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
285 views

Ligot V Mathay Digest

Ligot served three consecutive terms in the Philippine House of Representatives from 1957 to 1969. During his second term, the salary for congressmen was increased to P32,000 per year by law, but this increase did not apply to those already in office. Upon retirement, Ligot claimed retirement benefits calculated using the increased P32,000 salary. The Court held that allowing retirement benefits based on the increased salary would indirectly increase his compensation during his term, which is prohibited. The increased salary only applied to those elected starting in 1969, so Ligot's claim for benefits using the P32,000 salary could not be sustained.

Uploaded by

mybernal18
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ligot v Mathay G.R. No.

L-34676, April 30, 1974 FACTS: Ligot served as a member of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines for three consecutive fouryear terms covering a twelve-year span from December 30, 1957 to December 30, 1969. During his second term in office (1961-1965), RA 4134 fixing the salaries of constitutional officials and certain other officials of the national government was enacted into law and under section 7 thereof took effect on July 1, 1964. The salaries of members of Congress (senators and congressman) were increased under said Act from P7,200.00 to P32,000.00 per annum, but the Act expressly provided that said increases shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Ligots ter m expired on December 30, 1969, so he filed a claim for retirement under Commonwealth Act 186, section 12 (c) as amended by RA 4968 which provided for retirement gratuity of any official or employee, appointive or elective, with a total of at least twenty years of service, the last three years of which are continuous on the basis therein provided in case of employees based on the highest rate received and in case of elected officials on the rates of pay as provided by law. HOR granted his petition however, Velasco, the then Congress Auditor refused to so issue certification. The Auditor General then, Mathay, also disallowed the same. The thrust of Ligots appeal is that his claim for retirement gratuity computed on the basis of the increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum for members of Congress (which was not applied to him during his incumbency which ended December 30, 1969, while the Court held in Philconsa vs. Mathay that such increases would become operative only for members of Congress elected to serve therein commencing December 30, 1969) should not have been disallowed, because at the time of his retirement, the increased salary for members of Congress as provided by law (under Republic Act 4134) was already P32,000.00 per annum. ISSUE: Whether or not Ligot is entitled to such retirement benefit. HELD: To allow petitioner a retirement gratuity computed on the basis of P32,000.00 per annum would be a subtle way of increasing his compensation during his term of office and of achieving indirectly what he could not obtain directly. Ligots claim cannot be sustained as far as he and other members of Congress similarly situated whose term of office ended on December 30, 1969 are concerned for the simple reason that a retirement gratuity or benefit is a form of compensation within the purview of the Constitutional provision limiting their compensation and other emoluments to their salary as provided by law. To grant retirement gratuity to members of Congress whose terms expired on December 30, 1969 computed on the basis of an increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum (which they were prohibited by the Constitution from receiving during their term of office) would be to pay them prohibited emoluments which in effect increase the salary beyond that which they were permitted by the Constitution to receive during their incumbency. As stressed by the AuditorGeneral in his decision in the similar case of petitioners colleague, ex -Congressman Singson, (S)uch a scheme would contravene the Constitution for it would lead to the same prohibited result by enabling administrative authorities to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.

You might also like