Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 155831 (Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo v. Rogelio I. Rayala); G.R. No. 155840 (Rogelio I. Rayala v. Office of the President; Ronaldo V. Zamora, in his capacity as Executive Secretary; Roy V. Seneres, in his capacity as Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission [in lieu of Raul T. Aquino, in his capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission]; and Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo); G.R. No. 158700 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the President; and Alberto G. Romulo, in his capacity as Executive Secretary v. Rogelio I. Rayala). � On February 18, 2008, this Court promulgated its Decision in the above-captioned case. The Court upheld the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the ruling of the Office of the President, finding former National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Chairman Rogelio I. Rayala (Rayala) guilty of committing acts of sexual harassment. The Court also sustained the penalty of one-year suspension imposed by the CA.

Rayala did not file a motion for reconsideration.

On January 26, 2011, Rayala filed an Ex-Parte Urgent Motion for Clarification of Judgment. He alleged that he reached the mandatory retirement age while the case was pending before this Court. Hence, he could no longer re-assume his position at the NLRC even with the termination of this case.

In his motion, he claims that up to this day he has not received his retirement pay or any benefit under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910, or even backwages counting from June 2001, up to the date of his retirement. He attributes this to the absence, in the Court's February 18, 2008 Decision, of a pronouncement declaring him entitled to these.

He narrates that NLRC Chairman Gerardo Nograles, in accordance with law and in the exercise of the commission's quasi-judicial discretion, sought to grant Rayala backwages from June 1, 2001 (when he would have re-assumed his position after serving his one-year suspension) up to his mandatory retirement on December 28, 2003. However, the grant was denied by the Department of Budget and Management on the ground that the order of back pay was not provided for in the Decision of the Court.

Thus, he prays, in the interest of justice, and also as a compensatory relief for all the sufferings he and his family had endured, that the Court clarify its Decision to include an award for his back pay, benefits, and emoluments under the law, including retirement with monthly pension and gratuity benefits under R.A. No. 910, considering that he was a former chairman of the NLRC, with the same rank as that of the CA Presiding Justice.

The motion is denied.

After serving the full term of his suspension, the resumption of Rayala's government service, and all that came with it, would have been a logical consequence, the lack of a statement to that effect in the Court�s Decision notwithstanding.

If what Rayala alleges in his motion are true, certainly, he would, by law, be entitled to retirement benefits under whatever mode of retirement may be applicable to him. However, the Court acts based on facts and not on mere allegations. Thus, the Court has no legal or factual basis on which to base Rayala's entitlement to the benefits he seeks.

While the Court commiserates with Rayala's plight, it is not the proper venue from which to seek the relief he asks for. The determination of the benefits to which a government employee is entitled is a function of the agency to which he belongs. Hence, the relief he seeks lies with the NLRC and/or the government agency properly tasked to handle such a request. It is enough that we affirm his entitlement to such benefits if, indeed, he qualifies for the same under the law.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Ex-Parte Urgent Motion for Clarification of Judgment is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court