5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Please be advised that upon your recommendation, as an exemption to Executive Order No. 136 (series of 1999), the President has APPROVED the extension of service of Consul General ROLANDO S. GREGORIO, Chief of Mission Class II, of the Philippine Consulate General in Honolulu, Hawaii, Department of Foreign Affairs, beyond the compulsory retirement age, until June 30, 2005, or until the arrival of his successor, whichever is earlier. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Based on the foregoing, the extension of service of petitioner beyond the compulsory retirement age was authorized and approved by the President, albeit belatedly, as the Memorandum advising the DFA of the extension was only received on May 23, 2005. Nevertheless, the petitioner's extension of service also falls within the exemption provided under Sections 3 and 4 of E.O. No. 136, since the required authorization and approval from the Office of the President retroacts to January 1, 2005 as indicated in the Memorandum of Executive Secretary Ermita dated May 19, 2005 cited above. It should also be noted that the maximum extension of service beyond the age of retirement is one year only, which, in the case of petitioner Gregorio, is only up to April 17, 2005. Contrary to petitioner's claim that he has served as Consul General from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005, the records showed that on April 1, 2005, petitioner's successor, Consul Betita, was designated as Acting Head of Post and was deemed to have effectively and officially assumed office on the said date. However, Consul Betita's service, allegedly from January 1 to March 30, 2005, cannot be considered since her designation effective on January 1, 2005 under the DFA's letter dated March 22, 2005 cannot override the extension of service authorized by the Executive Secretary in the Memorandum dated May 19, 2005 although belatedly received on May 23, 2005. Thus, in view of the foregoing, we find that petitioner's extension of service was effective from January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2005 only, the period where petitioner continued to assume or hold the post of Consul General, and not until June 30, 2005 as he has claimed. Petitioner has not shown that he has rendered actual services after Consul Betita has been designated as Acting Head of the PCG of Honolulu on April 1, 2005. In fact, the records would show that on March 31, 2005, a Certificate of Clearance was issued by the DFA indicating that petitioner was already cleared of money and property accountability by PCG of Honolulu. Significantly, petitioner did not report for work from April 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005, as evidenced by the Leave of Absence filed by petitioner with the Office of Personnel and Administrative Services for the said period. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to his salary and other benefits only for the period from January 1, 2005 up to March 31, 2005. This is also in accord with the principle of quantum meruit, invoked by petitioner, which literally means "as much as he deserves." Under this principle a person may recover a reasonable value of the thing he delivered or the service he rendered.[38] The principle also acts as a device to prevent undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit without paying for it. The principle of quantum meruit is predicated on equity. Here, petitioner has sufficiently established his right to be compensated for the period for which his services as Consul General was extended, from January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2005. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66329 7/10