5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Second, Section 4 of E.O. No. 136 allows extension of government service beyond the mandatory age of retirement for a maximum of one (1) year only. The COA noted that at the time the request for extension of service was made on April 21, 2005, it was already beyond the maximum period of one (1) year from April 17, 2004. In the Memorandum of then Executive Secretary Ermita approving the extension of service of petitioner, it was expressly stated that petitioner's extension was until June 30, 2005, or until the arrival of his successor, whichever is earlier. It specifically states, to wit: 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.[26] (Emphasis and underscoring in the original) Third, Section 2 of the same provision states that officials or employees who have reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years shall not be retained in the service, except for exemplary meritorious reasons. Here, the COA noted that no documents were presented to show that petitioner's service was retained due to exemplary meritorious reasons. The COA found that petitioner's money claim is not supported with proof of actual services rendered.[27] Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied by the COA in a Resolution[28] dated March 8, 2018. Hence, petitioner filed the present petition asserting that: THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR MONEY CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT PETITIONER DID NOT RENDER ACTUAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2005 UP TO JUNE 17, 2005 CONSIDERING THAT CONSUL EVA G. BETITA WAS DESIGNATED TO THE POST.[29] Petitioner maintains that, contrary to the findings of the COA, he actually rendered service as the Consul General of the Philippine Consulate in Honolulu from January 1, 2005 until June 10, 2005 in a hold-over capacity.[30] Petitioner further contends that the designation of Consul Betita is void because it was issued by DFA Undersecretary Ebdalin, who had no authority to designate her. He asserts that the extension of a Foreign Service Officer must be approved by the President. It necessarily follows that the designation of a Foreign Service Officer must emanate from the President or, at the very least, must carry with it the imprimatur of the Secretary of the DFA, being an alter ego of the President. Moreover, petitioner points out that the designation of Consul Betita is dated March 22, 2005 and was officially received only on April 1, 2005. Therefore, it cannot retroact to January 1, 2005, hence, the DFA's insistence that Consul Betita assumed office as Acting Head of Post of PCG, Honolulu on January 1, 2005 is incorrect.[31] Petitioner also claims that he is entitled to extension pursuant to Section 2 of EO No. 136 considering his exemplary services as evidenced by his https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66329 4/10