TWO former police officers who were dismissed from active service for misconduct have failed to convince the Commission on Audit to grant their petitions against the PNP Retirement and Benefits Administration Service (PRBS) for payment of benefits.
In separate rulings, the COA denied the claims of former Senior Police Officer 1 Danilo Zambales for monetization of accumulated leaves totaling P436,026 and former Police Officer 2 Bienvy Calag II for payment of pension differential amounting to P653,113.76.
Zambales enlisted with the Armed Forces on June 7, 1982 and was absorbed into the PNP in 1991 with the rank of Police Officer 3.
He was dismissed from active police service effective October 8, 2001 after his wife filed a charge against him for grave misconduct. He said the case was settled later after they reconciled.
However, he only filed for commutation of the accumulated leave claim with the PRBS on May 31, 2022. This was denied on the ground that his request for payment of leave benefits was filed beyond the allowed period of 10 years.
The PRBS invoked Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 41, s. 1998, which gave the claimant only until October 7, 2011 – or 10 years after his dismissal from service – to request payment of terminal leave benefits.
The COA en banc sustained the PRBS position that Zambales’ right to claim had already prescribed before he found occasion to pursue it.
“Here, Mr. Zambales was dismissed from the service effective October 8, 2001. Contrary to his claim, the running of the prescriptive period commenced at the time of his separation from PNP. Hence, he had until October 8, 2011 to file his claim for payment of TLB,” the Commission said.
In the second case, Calag enlisted as a constable under the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) on October 5, 1988 and was absorbed into the PNP with the rank of PO2 in 1991.
Based on his service record, the claimant was dismissed from the service on November 12, 2012.
Calag said he remains entitled to pension differentials or additional retirement benefits even if he was dismissed from the service on the ground that he was covered by the retroactive application of the rationalized PNP retirement benefits.
The PRBS, through Brig. Gen. Niño David Rabaya, notified the COA that Calag was dismissed from the service due to a case punishable by dismissal and cancellation of eligibility, retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in police service.
It said the same directive barred the claimant from receiving any pension benefits.
“The petitioner did not retire from service. In fact, as confirmed by the PRBS, he was dismissed from the service effective November 12, 2012, which carries with it the accessory penalty of forfeiture of his retirement benefits. Thus, petitioner is not qualified to receive pension benefits, much less pension differential,” the COA declared.
