5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In its Answer dated October 28, 2015, respondent DFA, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), prayed that the money claim of petitioner be denied on the following grounds, to wit: (1) petitioner rendered actual service and reported for work, pursuant to approved extensions of service beyond his age of retirement, until December 31, 2004 only; (2) petitioner neither assumed nor continued to hold office from January to June 17, 2005, considering that the requisite approval of the President for the extension of his service was issued only on May 19, 2005, which is beyond the allowed maximum extension of one year; and (3) the effectivity of the Memorandum informing the DFA of the approval of extension of petitioner's services until June 30, 2005 cannot be made to apply on January 1, 2005 considering that Section 3 of Executive Order No. 136,[20] series of 1999 (E.O. No. 136) is explicit that a compulsory retired officer can neither assume nor continue in office without receipt of the requisite authority.[21] The Audit Team Leader of the DFA, Pasay City agreed with respondent DFA. On the other hand, the Cluster Director, Cluster 1 - Executive Offices, National Government Sector (NGS) of the COA recommended that the Petition for Money Claim of petitioner be given due course on the ground that the approval of Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita (Executive Secretary Ermita) of the extension of service of petitioner as an exemption from Executive Order (EO) No. 136 renders the DFA's opposition to the claim based on Sections 1, 3 and 4 of EO No. 136 ineffective. She ruled that the designation of Consul Betita as Acting Head of Post of Honolulu effective January 1, 2005 by then DFA Undersecretary Ebdalin is void since the latter had no authority to designate Consul Betita.[22] In a Decision[23] dated February 28, 2017, COA denied the petition for money claims filed by petitioner. The dispositive portion of the decision states, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petitions for Money Claim of Mr. Rolando S. Gregorio, former Consul General, Philippine Consulate General, Honolulu, Hawaii, for payment of salary and additional compensation; and Overseas Allowance and Living Quarters Allowance, for the period of January 1, 2005 to June 17, 2005 in the amounts of P119,487.50 and P1,921,659.70, respectively, or a total amount of P2,041,147.20, are hereby DENIED for lack of merit.[24] (Emphasis in the original) In denying the petition, the COA ruled that the money claim of petitioner is devoid of merit based on the following grounds. First, Section 3 of E.O. No. 136 provides that any officer or employee requesting retention in the service shall not be allowed to assume or continue in office pending receipt of authority from the Office of the President. The COA noted that the approved extension until June 30, 2005 pertains to the recommendation of DFA Secretary Romulo that the request of petitioner for extension until June 30, 2005 be granted. However, said request was made only on April 21, 2005 and its approval was communicated in a Memorandum dated May 19, 2005 of the Executive Secretary, which was received by the DFA only on May 23, 2005. The COA ruled that petitioner cannot assume or continue in office pending receipt of authority from the Office of the President and absent such authority, petitioner cannot claim benefit for the period from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005.[25] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66329 3/10