Ligot v Mathay (1974)

Petitioner: Benjamin T. Ligot

Respondent: Ismael Mathay (Auditor General) & Jose Velasco (Congress Auditor)
Ponente: Teehankee
Topic: Congress – Salaries, Privileges & Disqualifications

SUMMARY: RA 4134 (which provides for increase in salaries of members of Congress) was enacted
during Ligot’s term as Congressman, but he was not entitled to the salary increase because the 1935
Constitution provides that this salary increase is not operative until all the terms of members of Congress
who approved the salary increase have expired. When Ligot retired, RA 4134 became operative and so
he asked for his retirement gratuity to be computed based on the salary increase. The Court ruled that the
salary increase in RA 4134 only applies to incoming members of the Congress, not those who are retiring.

FACTS:

 Ligot: Member of House of Representatives of the Congress of the PH for 3 consecutive 4-year
terms (from Dec 30, 1957-Dec 30, 1969 = 12 years)
 During his 2nd term (1961-1965), RA 4134 was enacted/approved on June 20, 1964 & took effect
on July 1, 1964
o RA 4134: An act fixing the salaries of constitutional officials & certain other officials of the
national government
o Salaries of members of Congress: increased from Php 7,200/year to Php
32,000/year
o But these increases “shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution”
 Ligot was re-elected to a 3rd term (Dec 30 1965-Dec 30, 1969) but was not entitled to salary
increase because of Philconsa v Mathay decision
o Philconsa v Mathay decision: Increased compensation provided by RA 4134 is not
operative until Dec 30, 1969 (when the full term of all Congress members that approved it
on June 20, 1964 will have expired)
 ^in accordance with Sec 14, Art 6 of 1935 Consti: No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after expiration of the full term of all
the members of the Senate & of the HoR approving such increase.
 Ligot wasn’t reelected for a 4th term so he just filed for retirement under Commonwealth Act 186,
Sec 12(c) as amended by RA 4968
o ^Provides retirement gratuity of any official/employee, whether appointive or elective,
with a total of at least 20 yrs of service, the last 3 yrs of w/c 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 issued a treasury warrant of Php 122,429.86 for Ligot’s retirement gratuity
o Used the increased salary (Php 32,000/year) as provided for in RA 4134
o Velasco (Congress Auditor) didn’t sign the warrant because he was still waiting for
Mathay (Auditor General)’s decision in a similar case of Congressman Melanio T.
Singson (term also expired on Dec 30, 1969)
 When Singson case was decided, Velasco:
o Requested Ligot to return warrant & its supporting papers for a re-computation of his
retirement claim
o Gave a copy of Auditor General’s decision on Singson’s case (w/c denied Singson’s
claim for retirement gratuity based on salary increase in RA 4134)
 Ligot moved for reconsideration = denied = HENCE THIS PETITION
 Ligot says: By the time he retired (Dec 30, 1969), the salary increase in RA 4134 was already
operative so his retirement gratuity should be computed based on that salary increase.

ISSUE: WoN Ligot is entitled to retirement gratuity that is computed based on the salary increase
provided in RA 4134 – NO
  Doing so would violate Sec 14, Art 6, 1935 Constitution (w/c prohibits increased compensation of
legislators during their term of office)
o RA 4134 says that the salary increases shall be in accordance w Constitution
 Increasing Ligot’s compensation isn’t in accordance with Constitution = also not
in accordance with RA 4134
o Retirement gratuity: compensation for services rendered that is limited by the
Constitution
o Cited Philconsa v Gimenez: Struck down RA 3836 w/c provides for an increase in the
emoluments of members of Congress. Retirement benefits were immediately available
w/o awaiting the expiration of the full term of members of Congress. = runs counter to
prohibition in Art 6, Sec 14, Consti
 Granting them retirement gratuity computed based on the increased salary would enable other
authorities “to do indirectly what cannot be done directly”
o It would be like giving him the benefits of increased compensation to w/c he was not
entitled to during his term
o Auditor General says: It makes no sense because... he didn’t get the rate of salary during
his term of service but now he’s getting it because he’s retiring??
 Increased salary rate in RA 4134 are only given to the incoming members of Congress, not
those who are retiring on Dec 30, 1969
o Rate of pay of Ligot & other retiring members of Congress: only Php 7,200/year as fixed
in the Constitution at the time of his office

PETITION DISMISSED.
NOTES:

 Pensions & retirement allowances = part of compensation of public officials