A QUEZON City trial court judge has cited the brilliance of Public Attorney’s Office Chief Persida Rueda-Acosta and Deputy Chief Ana Lisa Soriano when they defended the public lawyers’ rights for retirement benefits in a case filed before the former’s sala.
Judge Maria Gilda Loja-Pangilinan, of Regional Trial Court’s Branch 230, recalled the masterful move of Rueda-Acosta and Soriano when she spoke before the over 3,000 public attorneys during PAO’s 9th Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Grand Convention at the World Trade Center Metro Manila.
Loja-Pangilinan was referring to the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed by PAO before her sala a few years back and was cleverly defended in court by the top two officials in connection with the benefits that must be received by the agency’s retirees in accordance with the existing laws but were previously disapproved by the Department of Budget and Management.
Citing a legal opinion, the DBM said PAO’s retirees weren’t qualified 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 R.A. 10071, (NAPROS Law) – at the center of the argument, the judge told the public attorneys how Rueda-Acosta and Soriano managed to convince the lower court when they filed the twin petitions instead of a petition for declaratory relief.
The judge said they’re right because if they had chosen to file the petition for declaratory relief, that would only mean that they admitted their own law was confusing.
In her ruling, she cited Section 5 of PAO Law and Section 16 of NAPROS Law that must be read together and harmonized to give life to the legislative intent that the ranks, salaries, and benefits would equal each other.
Loja-Pangilinan admitted that she received ‘a bit of flak’ over her decision, but she stood by it and got vindicated by the ruling of the Court of Appeals that affirmed her verdict favorable to PAO’s retirees.
