Ligot vs.

Mathay (1974)
Teehankee, J.
Case Summary: Petitioner, after serving 3 terms in Congress as a member of the House of
Representatives, claims that the basis of his retirement pay should be P32,000 instead of
P7,200. The P32,000 is the increased amount of salary of a Congressman effective
December 30, 1969 as provided by the Court in Philconsa vs. Mathay that is the date when
all the members of Congress who approved the increase has retired. Petitioner retired on
December 30, 1969, thus he claims that since the increase was effective on that date, his
retirement pay should be based on the increased amount. SC ruled otherwise.
Facts:
Petitioner Benjamin Ligot served as a member of the House of Representatives for
three consecutive 4-year terms from December 30, 1957 to December 30, 1969.
During his second term, RA 4134 was enacted providing for the increase in salaries of
the members of Congress from P7,200 to P32,000. The Act likewise provided that the
increase shall take effect in accordance with the provision of the Constitution.
o Thus, in the unanimously decided case of Philconsa vs. Mathay, the Supreme
Court held that the Act shall not be operative until December 30, 1969 when
the full term of all members of Senate and House that approved the increase
will have expired by virtue of the constitutional mandate in Section 14 Article
VI of the 1935 Constitution, to wit:
No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives approving such increase.
Petitioner lost the bid for a 4 th term, thus, his term expired on December 30, 1969. He
filed a claim for retirement under CA 186 which provided for retirement gratuity to
any official or employee, appointive of elective, with a total of at least 20 years of
service provided, in case of employees based on the highest rate received, and in
case of elective officials based on the rates of pay as provided by law.
Respondent Velasco, as Congress Auditor, did not sign the treasury warrant issued to
the Petitioner on the ground that it was based on the increased amount instead of the
P7,200 which the petitioner actually received while he was in service. The Auditor
General sided with the Congress Auditor and returned the treasury warrant to the
petitioner enclosed with a copy of the resolution of the Office of the President against
the same claim filed by Congressman Singson.
Issue: WON the petitioner is entitled to the increased salary to be used as basis of his
retirement pay.
Held: No, the basis of his retirement pay should be P7,200.
Since is was already decided thatthe law shall not be operative until December 30,
1969 when the full term of all members of Senate and House that approved the
increase will have expired, it is self-evident that the rate of pay as provided by law for
members of the Congress retiring on December 30, 1969 is P7,200.
It is correctly submitted by the SolGen that to allow the petitioner a retirement
gratuity computed on the basis of P32,000 would be a subtle way of increasing his
compensation during the term of his office and of achieving indirectly what he could
not obtain directly.
o Such 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.

This was the clear teaching of Philconsa vs. Jimenez. In striking down RA 3836 as null
and void insofar as it referred the retirement of members of Congress and elected
officials thereof for being violative of the Constitution, the Court held that it is evident
that retirement benefit is a form o another species of emolument, because it is part
of compensation for services and that RA 3836 provides for an increase in the
emoluments as it provides that the law shall take effect upon its approval. The law in
that case made the increase available without awaiting the expiration of the full term
of the member of Congress that approved such increase in clear violation of the
prohibition under Article VI, Section 14 of the 1935 Constitution.

Digested by: Kaye de Chavez