DUE to misplaced papers, a former officer of the Philippine Marine Corps (PMC) almost missed out on collecting his pension and retirement benefits.
Retired Lt. Col. George Frogoso stands to receive a P4,356,693.60 windfall representing unpaid retirement benefits and pension due him from April 2008 to December 2019.
In a nine-page decision released last April 21, the Commission on Audit granted Frogoso’s claim against the Armed Forces of the Philippines Pension and Gratuity Management Center (AFPGMC), noting that the PMC officer retired effective April 1, 2008 but the folder he submitted containing his service records and clearances was lost.
Frogoso said he filed for optional retirement on October 18, 2007, notifying the PMC Personnel Administration that he is leaving the service, but got no reply over many years.
It was only on July 13, 2018, during one of his follow-ups that he was informed that his full documents and clearances had gone missing and were not recovered despite efforts to retrieve them.
He was instructed to refile his application for optional retirement and resubmit the documentary requirements. In just one week, Frogoso was able to comply.
The Philippine Navy Retirement and Separation Adjudication Board (PNRSAB), in its Board Resolution Number 01-2020-01, unanimously approved on January 16, 2020 the optional retirement of Frogoso.
In addition, General Orders Number 590 dated May 26, 2020 of the AFP confirmed his optional retirement effective April 1, 2008.
The retired soldier only started receiving his pension in January 2020, while computations on his unpaid benefits and uncollected pension were being computed. Ultimately, the sum owed to Frogoso was determined to be P4.357 million.
However, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) said that under Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the claim for pension benefits should be filed no later than 10 years from the date they become due; otherwise, the prescription date takes effect.
The AFP took the contrary position and insisted that the claimant should still be paid since it was his right from having rendered service for the requisite number of years.
The matter was brought before the Department of Justice (DOJ), which issued Opinion No. 26 dated November 2, 2022 holding that the Civil Code may apply suppletory, effectively upholding the prescription.
In its decision, the COA en banc declared that the claim was valid and that he is entitled to payment of pension benefits dating back to the exact date when his retirement took effect.
