The petitioner Lydia Chua worked for the National Irrigation Administration for over 15 years as a coterminous employee across four successive projects. When she applied for early retirement benefits under R.A. 6683, which allows voluntary separation for employees with at least two years of service due to government reorganization, her application was denied on the basis that she was a coterminous rather than regular employee. The Supreme Court ruled that coterminous employees are entitled to the same benefits as casual and emergency employees under the law as long as the requirements are met. Since Lydia Chua served far more than the two year minimum, the denial of her application was deemed unreasonable and oppressive.
The petitioner Lydia Chua worked for the National Irrigation Administration for over 15 years as a coterminous employee across four successive projects. When she applied for early retirement benefits under R.A. 6683, which allows voluntary separation for employees with at least two years of service due to government reorganization, her application was denied on the basis that she was a coterminous rather than regular employee. The Supreme Court ruled that coterminous employees are entitled to the same benefits as casual and emergency employees under the law as long as the requirements are met. Since Lydia Chua served far more than the two year minimum, the denial of her application was deemed unreasonable and oppressive.
The petitioner Lydia Chua worked for the National Irrigation Administration for over 15 years as a coterminous employee across four successive projects. When she applied for early retirement benefits under R.A. 6683, which allows voluntary separation for employees with at least two years of service due to government reorganization, her application was denied on the basis that she was a coterminous rather than regular employee. The Supreme Court ruled that coterminous employees are entitled to the same benefits as casual and emergency employees under the law as long as the requirements are met. Since Lydia Chua served far more than the two year minimum, the denial of her application was deemed unreasonable and oppressive.
The petitioner Lydia Chua worked for the National Irrigation Administration for over 15 years as a coterminous employee across four successive projects. When she applied for early retirement benefits under R.A. 6683, which allows voluntary separation for employees with at least two years of service due to government reorganization, her application was denied on the basis that she was a coterminous rather than regular employee. The Supreme Court ruled that coterminous employees are entitled to the same benefits as casual and emergency employees under the law as long as the requirements are met. Since Lydia Chua served far more than the two year minimum, the denial of her application was deemed unreasonable and oppressive.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
G.R. No.
88979 February 7, 1992
Lydia O. Chua Vs. The Civil Service Commission, the National Irrigation Administration and the Department of Budget and Management. Facts: In line with the policy of streamlining and trimming the bureaucracy, R.A.6683 was enacted to provide for the early retirement and voluntary separation of government employees affected due to reorganization, those who may avail were regular, casual, temporary and emergency employees, with rendered service minimum of two years. Petitioner Lydia Chua was hired by the National Irrigation Administration Authoruty (NIA) for over 15 years as a coterminous employee of 4 successive NIA projects. She availed of the above mentioned law only to be denied as the CSC who deemed her unqualified, being a coterminous employee. She was instead offered a severance of ½ monthly basic pay for each year of service. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was entitled to avail of the early retirement benefit as a coterminous employee. Held: It was stated that a coterminous employee is a non-career civil servant like casual and emergency employees, because of that they are entitled to the same benefits as long as they complied with the requirements of the law, which in this case, was done by Linda Chua. On that note, the court believes that the denial of petitioner’s application for early retirement benefits by the NIA and CSC is unreasonable, unjustified and oppressive due to the fact that she is entitled to the benefits of the same law because she served the government not only for two (2) years which is the minimum requirement under the law but for fifteen (15) years. In four (4) governmental projects. Wherefore, the petition is granted.
