G.R. No. 88979 February 1992 (Lydia Chua v The Civil Service Commission, The National Irrigation Commission) Flashcards
Who is the petitioner?
Lydia Chua
Project-based employee, National Irrigation Commission
Who are the respondents?
The Civil Service Commission and The National Irrigation Commission
What law is in consideration?
The Early Retirement Law / R.A. 6683
Providing for benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation from the government service as well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization.
What is the coverage of R.A. 6683?
All appointive officials and employees of the National Government
All regular, temporary, casual, and emergency employees, regardless of age, who have rendered at least two (2) consecutive years of government service at the date of separation
Did NIA approve of Chua’s application for retirement?
NO.
What did Chua do when her application was denied?
She appealed for reconsideration.
Did NIA approve of Chua’s appeal for reconsideration?
NO, saying that Chua’s employment status was co-terminus to her projects.
What is the ISSUE?
Whether or not Chua’s employment status is covered by R.A. 6683
What is the DECISION of the Court?
Chua won.
Her petition for early retirement was granted.
What was the reason for the Court’s decision?
Chua’s employment status, “co-terminus employee” is a non-career civil servant, like casual and emergency employees.
How long has Chua been hired and rehired by the NIA?
15 fucking years
What DOCTRINE is illustrated here?
Doctrine of necessary implication
