G.R. No. 207281 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Petition is DENIED and COA CGS-A Decision No. 005 dated December 28, 2010 affirming ND No. ERIP-2006-007(03-06) dated May 17, 2007 on the payment of retirement benefits to DBP officials and employees in the total amount of P747,174,594.28 is hereby AFFIRMED. [33] Meanwhile, in a letter dated February 14, 2013, the DBP Board informed the ERIP IV-2010 availees who retired effective December 31, 2012 (mostly under Board Resolution No. 0167 the resumption of ERIP IV) that DBP had decided to hold in abeyance the final implementation of the ERIP IV pending the resolution of the ND. [34] DBP filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the COA Decision, which was denied by the COA in a Resolution [35] dated December 6, 2013. [36] In the interim, petitioners-retirees sent a demand letter on March 12, 2013 to Jose Nuñez (Mr. Nuñez), chairman of the Board, asking for immediate release of their benefits and informing the DBP Board that they are still open to negotiation in order to reach a peaceful settlement. [37] On March 15, 2013, Mr. Nuñez and Gil Buenaventura (Mr. Buenaventura), a board member, sent individual letters to petitioners-retirees informing them that on March 1, 2013, DBP received a copy of the COA Decision affirming the disallowance of the ERIP IV-2003. The letters also informed them that DBP already prepared the Guidelines for the Return to Work of the ERIP IV-2010 retirees. In the letter, the following portion of the Opinion of the Civil Service Commission was quoted, to wit: Therefore, in case the DBP decides not to move for the reconsideration of the COA Decision dated January 30, 2013, the same will attain finality and become executory. Verily, the DBP may already reinstate the ERIP IV availees to their former positions with payment of back salaries and other benefits including leave credits from the time they were separated from the service until their actual reinstatement. However, if the DBP moves for reconsideration of the COA decision, the reinstatement of the affected employees will depend on the decision of the COA on the Motion for Reconsideration. x x x [38] Essentially, petitioners-retirees were given two choices: (1) to return to work on the condition that they withdraw their ERIP IV-2010 application; or (2) to await the COA resolution on the MR that DBP then intended to file. [39] On March 21, 2013, Mr. Nuñez sent a letter-reply to the demand letter where he reiterated his previous explanations as to the disallowance and claimed that DBP, "in exercising extraordinary due diligence in the handling of public funds [was] constrained not to release the ERIP IV[-2010] incentives." [40] Then, as mentioned earlier, DBP filed on March 27, 2013 its MR of the COA Decision. [41] On June 13, 2013, the petitioners-retirees filed the instant Petition for Mandamus against the DBP Board, praying for the release of their retirement benefits under ERIP IV-2010. Subsequently, on February 3, 2014,