By Tracy Cabrera
MANILA — A Quezon City Regional Trial Court judge has commended Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) chief Persida Rueda-Acosta and deputy chief Ana Lisa Soriano for their legal strategy in securing retirement benefits for public lawyers.
During a speech before around 3,000 public attorneys at the PAO’s 9th Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Grand Convention in Pasay City, RTC Branch 230 Judge Maria Gilda Loja-Pangilinan highlighted how the two PAO officials effectively handled a petition involving retirement entitlements previously questioned by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM).
The dispute stemmed from DBM’s earlier denial of benefits for PAO retirees, arguing that they were not entitled to the same salary and benefits as members of the National Prosecution Service (NAPROS).
Central to the case were Republic Act 9406, or the PAO Law, and Republic Act 10071, which governs the prosecution service. Judge Loja-Pangilinan noted that the PAO opted to file petitions for certiorari and mandamus rather than a petition for declaratory relief, a move she described as legally strategic.
She explained that declaratory relief would have required the court to interpret conflicting provisions of law, making the case more complex. In contrast, certiorari and mandamus focused on alleged grave abuse of discretion and the enforcement of a clear legal right.
According to the judge, PAO argued that the law was already clear and did not require further interpretation.
“They maintained they were not asking for interpretation because the law speaks for itself,” she said.
Loja-Pangilinan emphasized that the approach strengthened PAO’s position, as it avoided implying ambiguity in the law. She also noted that mandamus applies when a legal right exists and a government agency has a ministerial duty to comply.
In her ruling, the judge held that without any court declaration repealing or invalidating the PAO Law, both statutes remain valid and must be harmonized.
She added that provisions under both laws support the principle of parity in ranks, salaries, and benefits between PAO lawyers and prosecutors.
“The entitlement to retirement benefits equivalent to those under the NAPROS Law has been affirmed in jurisprudence through PAO v. DBM,” she said.
Loja-Pangilinan also stressed that retirement benefits go beyond financial compensation, calling them recognition of public service.
“Justice is not only about resolving cases. It is also about how we honor those who serve it,” she concluded.
ia/xf
