Tantuico, Jr. v. DomingoCase No. 285G. R. No. 96422 (February 28, 1994)Chapter IV, Page 176, Footnote No.205FACTS:The petition questions the withholding of one-half of Petitioner’s retirementbenefits. Petitioner was Chairman of the COA from 1976 to 1986. On December 1985,he applied for and obtained clearance, which covered the period from 1976 to1985, from all money, property, and other accountabilities in preparation for hisretirement. After the EDSA Revolution, he submitted his resignation and sought asecond clearance for the period from January 1, 1986 to March 9, 1986. Respondent,who took over as Chairman, created an inventory/audit of all equipment acquiredduring the tenure of his 2 predecessors. After the committee recommendedPetitioner’s clearance from accountability and after another special audit,Respondent approved Petitioner’s application for retirement but added that . of themoney value of benefits due would be withheld subject to the findings of the audit.ISSUE:W/N Respondent can authorize that half of Petitioner’s retirement benefitsmay be withheld.HELD:No. Under Section 4 of RA 1568 providing for life pension to the AuditorGeneral and members of COMELEC, the benefits granted shall not be subject togarnishment, levy or execution. Likewise, under Section 33 of P.D. 1146 (RevisedGovernment Service Insurance Act), the benefits granted “shall not be subject,among others, to attachment, garnishment, levy or other processes.” WithholdingPetitioner’s benefits is not allowed in this case. Well-settled is the rule that retirementlaws are liberally interpreted in favor of the retiree because the intention is to providefor the retiree’s well-being.