· Created Date: 3/4/2015 1:56:31 PM
Transcript of · Created Date: 3/4/2015 1:56:31 PM
GSI S
REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINASPASEGURUHAN NG MGA NAGLILINGKOD SA PAMAHALAAN
(GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM)Financial Center, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City 1308
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
In the Matter of the Appeal fromthe Committee on ClaimsResolution denying Petitioner'sPetition for Release of hlsRetirement Benefits,
AMADO M. SOLAMO,Petitioner.
BOARD CASE No. OOl-13
x
DECISTON
For our decision is the Petition filed on 12 December 2012,
seeking to reverse and set aside Resolution No. O7-20L2 of the
Committee on Claims dated 20 March 2Ol2 (copy received by
Petitioner on 23 October 2012), affirming Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) - Davao Regional Office's disapproval of
petitioner Amado M. Solamo's application for release of retirement
benefits.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner Amado M. Solamo, seryed as Labor Arbiter of the
Department of Labor and Employment from 1986 until his
dismissal in 20061. His dismissal precipitated from the 31July 2006
Order of the Office of the Ombudsman directing the Secretary of
the Department of Labor and Employment to implement its
1 COC's Answer dated 5 March 2013.
PaEt 2
IN rHE MATTER oF: ^prear
rrom rhe conmittee on cr,il* nesorution *" r-r3f,lfrfiiii,fl,i;"9'1'-"Peiilio. for Retircmeni Be..fils. ANIADO M. SOLAlrtrO' letitionet
Decision dated 18 October 2005 in OMB-M-A-04-21.6-1, finding
petitioner, guilty of the administrative offenses of grave
misconduct and dishonesty, iz:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Officefinds substantial evidence to hold respondent AmadoMarquez Solamo guilty of the Administrative offense ofgrave misconduct and dishonesty and is herebyimposed the penalty of dismissal from service inaccordance with Section 52, A (1) (3) of RuIe IV(Penalties) of the Uniform Rules on AdministrativeCases in the Civil Service which was promulgatedpursuant to CSC Resolution No. 991936.
SO DECIDED.,
Petitioner appealed the 18 October 2005 Decision of the
Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-M-A-04-21,6-l before the Court of
Appeals (CA) via Petition for Review (CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN)
and its 3i July 2006 Ordervia Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
(cA-G.R. SP NO. 01363-MIN).3
While the administrative case was pending before the Court
of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision on 28 April
2011 in Crim. Case No. 28258 finding petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct Bribery under the second
paragraph of Article 210 of. the Revised Penal Code.a
On 13 May 2011, the Court of Appeals in its consolidated
Decision in CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN and CA-G.R. SP NO.
2 As quoted in the CA Consolidated Decision in CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN andCA-G.R. SP NO. 01363-MIN, dated May 13, 2011.3 CA Consolidated Decision in CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN and CA-G.R. SP NO.01363-MIN, dated May 13, 2O1l4 Supra, Note 1.
htgc l
GSIS Case No. OO1-13IN 'l.tlE MAfTER OF: App$l tru lhe Commiflee on Clainrs Resolurion No. 07-2012 detryins P€titioner's
P.titiotr forR.tircme.i tlctrcfit.. AMADO M SOLAMo' Petitloner
01363-MIN affirmed the Ombudsman's Decision dated LB October
2005 and Order dated 31 July 2006. In a Resolution dated 27
October 2011, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied
by the Court ofAppeals.
On 28 September 2011 and pending resolution of his
application for probation before the Sandiganbayan, Petitioner
filed his application for retirement benefits with the GSIS Davao
Regional Office.5
On 4 October 2011, the GSIS Davao Regional Office
disapproved petitioner's retirement claim on the basis of the
Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 2B April 2011 finding petitioner
guilty of Direct Bribery under Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) and it became final upon petitioner's application for
probation. It explained further that under Sec.13 of R.A. 3019, loss
of retirement or gratuity benefits follows upon conviction by final
judgment of the accused for the offenses punishable under R.A.
3019 or Title 7 of the RPC. Thus, petitioner's application for
retirement benefits was disapproved.6 Petitioner received the letter
disapproving his retirement benefits on 20 October 201t.7
On 24 October 201,I, petitioner moved for the
reconsideration of the disapproval of his application for retirement
benefits. The GSIS Davao Regional Office elevated the matter to
the Committee on Claims (CoC).
s Petitioner's Memorandum dated April 70, 2013, p. 2.6 GSIS Letter dated 4 October 2011.7 Petitioner's Memorandum dated April 10,2013.
GSIS Case No, oo1-13IN THE MATTER Ol': AI|PtI froln llre Commiltee on Cl,imi Resoluiion No. 0?-2012 dcnvinB Petiliotreis
l'elition for Retircn.trt Bcnefits AMADO M. SOLANIO' Petitio,rcr
On 4 November 2011, the Sandiganbayan granted
Petitioner's application for probation in Crim Case No. 28258.
On 20 March 20L2, ttre CoC adopted Resolution No. 07-2012
affirming the GSIS Davao Regional Office's disapproval of
petitioner's application for retirement benefits, to wit:
Resolved, to affirm the disapproval by the DavaoRegional Office of Mr. Amado M. Solamo's retirementclaim on the ground that the judgment finding himguilty of direct bribery became final as a result of hisfiling an application for probation, and that underSection 13 of R.A. 3019, "loss of retirement or gratuitybenefits follows upon conviction by final judgment ofthe accused for offenses punishable under RA 3019 orTitle 7, Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code or anyoffense involving fraud. "
On 23 October 2012, Petitioner received the letter from the
GSIS-Davao Branch Manager informing him of the aforementioned
CoC Resolution No. 07-2012.8
On 27 November 20L2, petitioner applied for the early
termination of his probation with the City Probation and Parole
Officer of Davao City.e
On 20 December 2012, petitioner filed his Petition before the
Board of Trustees, alleging that a) the Sandiganbayan's approval
and grant of his probation operates to suspend the execution of the
principal penalty of imprisonment and fine and all the accessory
I Petitioner's Appeal Brief Dated 17 December 2012.e Petitioner's Memorandum dated April 70,2073.
PoEc 5
IN THE MATTER oF: App.lr trom the conmi(.e on criims r..sorutiotr *,, t,-,'3::"rf5:'X';;""'?""Petilion for Retiremenl Benenrs. A1!IADO 1. SOI,AMO, Petitionet
penalties inherent and concomitant thereto including special
temporary disqualification and retirement benefits due to the
probationer;r0 b) the pendency of his administrative case before the
Court of Appeals is beyond the ambit of the Implementing Rules
and Reguiations of R.A. 10154 which provides that retirement
benefits of retiring employees may be withheld if the employee has
a pending administrative cds€;r1 and c) the denial of his retirement
benefits deprives him of his substantive and procedural rights in
violation of equal protection clause of the constitution . 12
On the other hand, Respondent Committee
maintains that a) approval and grant of probation
on
do
Claims (CoC),
not operate to
suspend the execution of the penalties imposed; b) termination of
probation does not operate to restore petitioner's entitlement to
retirement benefits; and c) petitioner's retirement benefits were
forfeited by virtue of the Decision dated 18 October 2005 of the
Office of the Ombudsman.13
On 26 December 201'2, a Motion for Early Termination of
Probation was filed on petitioner's behalf by his Probation Officer.
On L4 January 2013, the Executive Judge of Regional Trial Court of
Davao City granted the motion for early termination of probation
and restored unto petitioner all his civil rights.la
10 Petitioner's Memorandum dated 10 April 2013, p.3r1 Id.p. 7.t2 Petitioner's Appeal Briefdated 17 December 2012 and Memorandum dated 10
April 2013, p. 3.13 CoC Memorandum dated 23 April 2013.la Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 6-7.
lltqr 6
rN rHE MAr-rER or.: Arresr rrom rhc commitree on creim3 Resororion *,. ,-.3::i,f,fi:,fl,;;""'?'-"P€lition for [cliremert Berefils. AMADO M SOL?tMO, Petitione.
On 10 July 2013, the Supreme Court rendered a Resolution
on Petitioner's administrative case (Amado Inocentes vs. Office of
the Ombudsman, NBI & Pablito Reginio, G.R. Nos. 206750-51)
affirming the Court of Appeals' Decision dated 13 May 2011 and
Resolution dated 27 October 2011.
The GSIS records, however, bear only the 2011 certification
from the Court of Appeals that the case is pending before it, thus,
on l August 2013, the Petitioner was directed to submit a
certification of the curent status of his administrative case from
the Court (Court of Appeals or Supreme Court) where it is pending.
Petitioner failed to comply with the said directive.
On L5 August201,3, the Supreme Court (SC) issued an Entry
of Judgment in G.R. Nos. 206750-51(administrative case).
Through a representative from the GSIS Cagayan de Oro
Branch Office, the GSIS secured copies of the CA consolidated
Decision dated 13 May 2011 and Resolution dated 27 October 2011.
in CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN and CA-G.R. SP NO. 01363-MIN as
well as the Entry of Judgment issued by the SC.
fssues
Whether Petitioner is entitled to his claim forretirement benefit.
Whether the grant of probation and its subsequenttermination extinguishes the penalty of forfeitureof retirement benefits of a probationer who wasfound guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct
1)
2)
l'aEc 7
lN THE MATIER or: Appe.l rro", rhecommife. on claihs Rsorution -" '-,o'9:'lf.rSF:tL:;""'?'-"Petirion f',r Retirenent BeDefils. AIIADO M SOLAI\lO' Petitio e.
bribery under Article 210 of the Revised PenalCode;
3) Whether Section 6 of the Implementing Rules andRegulations of R.A. 10L54 is applicable topetitioner.
4) Whether the disapproval of petitioner's applicationfor retirement benefits deprives him of hissubstantive and procedural rights in violation ofequal protection clause of the constitution;
Discussion
Petitioner is not entitled to his claim for retirement benefits.
Both the final decisions in the criminal case and the
administrative case justify the forfeiture of Petitioner's retirement
benefits.
For one, Petitioner Solamo cannot claim his retirement
benefits in view of the Ombudsman Decision dated t B October
2005 in NBI and Pablito B. Reginio vs. Amado M. Solamo (OMB-M-
A-04-21,6-I) finding him administratively liable of the
administrative offenses of grave misconduct and dishonesty and
imposing upon him the penalty of "DISMISSAL FROM THE
SERVICE in accordance with Section 52, A(1) (3) of Rule IV
(Penalties) of the URACCS".
Sec. 58, Rule IV of the Uniform Rule in Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service (URACCS) provides the "administrative
disabilities" that the dismissal from service inherently carries,
CSIS Case No. OO1.13lN THtr MATTER OF: Appeal from the Commillce on Chims Resolulion No 07'20l2 denvi's Peiitiooer's
P€tition for Retiremenl Be.elits. ANIADO NI SOLAMO' Petitionet
which are " cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement
benefits. and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in
the government service, unless otherwise prouided in the decision.
The Ombudsman Decision dated 1B October 2005 is
immediately executory even pending appeal by the Petitioner to
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme CourL, pursuant to existing
rulesls and jurisprudence. tu Hence, the penalties of dismissal and
forfeiture of retirement benefits imposed on Petitioner are
immediately executory even pending appeal.
Furthermore, when Petitioner filed his retirement claim on
28 September 20tL, the Ombudsman Decision dated 18 October
2005 had already been affirmed by the Court of Appeals on 13 May
2011.. The same attained finality on 15 August 2013 through an
Entry of Judgment in the Supreme Court. With the Decision having
become final and executory, the implementation of the
15 Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. -
xxx xxx xxxAn appeal shall not stop the decision from being
executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and therespondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as havingbeen under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary andsuch other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of thesuspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman inadministrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course.The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shallbe strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal orfailure by any officer withoutjust cause to comply with an order ofthe Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, orcensure shall be ground for disciplinary action against said officer.(Emphasis supplied)
ru Office ofthe Ombudsman vs. Samson De Leon, G.R. No. 154083, February 27,20t3
I't8! 9
GSIS Case No. 001-13IN THE MAT'IER OF: Appeal frdm the Commitlee or Clcins R.solution No. 07-2012 denyins P.ririoner's
l'elitio, for Refirement B.nefits. AlltADO I!t. SOLANIO, P.titioner
Ombudsman's Decision dated 1B October 2005 is simply a
ministerial duty on the part of the GSIS.
For another, in its decision dated 28 April 2011 in Crim. Case
No. 28258, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct Bribery under the second
paragraph of Article 2IO of the Revised Penal Code. " On 28
September 201L and pending resolution of his application for
probation before the Sandiganbayan, Petitioner filed his
application for retirement benefits with the GSIS Davao Regional
Office.18
Thus, the GSIS Davao Branch Office and the CoC did not
err in denying Petitioner's claim for retirement benefits
because an application for probation constitutes an admission of
guilt, making the judgment of conviction final. " By availing of
probation, the conuicted accused admits his guilt. The corollary
implication is that the filing of a petition for probation, considered
a waiver of the accused's right to appeal, makes his conviction final
the moment he files said application."le Sec. 4, PD 968 as amended,
in part provides "The filing of the application shall be deemed a
waiver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a
pending appeal."
17 Supra, Note 1.r8 Petitioner's Memorandum dated April L0, 20L3, p.2.ls Heirs of the late Francisco Abueg vs. Court of Appeals and Joselito Orafia,
[A.M. No. RTJ-02-1716. September 72,2OO2.l (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.02-1424-RU).
h1g! I0
IN TIIE MATTER oF: Appcsl ,ron, rhe Commitre. on cltims Resoluriotr *. ,-,,,9::;f,:i':,f,:;"'.'?'-"Pelilion tor Retirem.nt Betrefits-,l]UADO IU SOLAMO, Petitioner
Corollarily, having applied for probation, Petitioner's
conviction became final and executory even prior to his application
for retirement benefits. Thus, . Iosing his retirement benefits,
pursuant Io Sec. 13, RA 3019 which provides:
Section L3. Suspension and loss of benefits. Anypublic officer against whom any criminal prosecutionunder a valid information under this Act or under theprovisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery ispending in court, shall be suspended from office.Should he be conuicted by tinal iudgment, he shalllose aII retirement or gratuity benefits under anyIaw, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled toreinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which hefailed to receive during suspension, unless in themeantime administrative proceedings have been filedagainst him.
Petitioner's contention that the grant of probation by the
Sandiganbayan in his criminal case of direct bribery operates to
suspend the execution of penalties and all the accessory penalties
thereof, is untenable even if we are to affirm the basis of the CoC
and GSIS Davao Branch in the disapproval of petitioner's
retirement claim. An application for probation constitutes an
admission of guilt, making the judgment of conviction final. By
availing of probation, the convicted accused admits his guilt. The
corollary implication is that the filing of a petition for probation,
considered a waiver of the accused's right to appeal, makes his
conviction final the moment he files said application."20
20 Heirs of the late Francisco Abueg vs.lA.M. No. RTJ-02-1716. September 12,02-1424-RTJ).
Court of Appeals and Joselito Oraffa,2002.1 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.
htt!. I1
rN THE MATTER oF: Appc.r rrom the comm*re€ on craims R€sorurion *". ,-.,9ilfrfi'ri,X,i;"'.'?'-"Pelition for Rrtircment Benefils. AIUADO iU. SOLAMO, Petitio et
The subsequent termination of petitioner Solamo's probation
does not extinguish the accessory penalties of forfeiture of
retirement benefits provided under Sec. L3 of RA No. 3019.
Probation is primarily intended for the reformation of the
probationer 21 and not to excuse the latter from any criminal
Iiabilities and accessory penalties. Nothing in PD No. 698 as
amended by PD No. 1990 indicates that probation extinguishes the
probationer's criminal liability and the penalties attached to it.
Extinguishment of penalties, such as the forfeiture of
retirement benefits imposed by Sec. 13 of RA No. 3019, is not
within the spirit and letter of the Probation Law.
Further, the Supreme Court in Atty. Romeo S. Perez vs.
Hon. Judge Carlos Abiera22 declared that before one may be
entitled to retirement gratuity, certain requisites must concur, viz:
First, he must have paid the premiums required underSection 5 of Republic Act No. 660 known as the GovernmentService Act. Second, he must have reached the compulsoryage of retirement under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 910as amended by Republic Act No. 2614 and 5O95. Third, hemust have rendered satisfactory and meritorious service tothe government, for a grant of retirement benefits is notonly an act of generosity or liberality on the part of thegovernment but is equally a compensation and reward forsatisfactory, faithful, meritorious and valuable senticerendered to the latter. (underscoring and italizationsupplied. )
21 Agustin Salgado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89606 August 30,Alvin Lee Koenig, Post Sentence Investigation, Its Importance andJournal, Special Issue on Probation, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 381-387.
22 A.M. No. 223-.I.Iune 71, 7975.
1990 citingUtility, IBP
GSIS Case No. OOl-13IN THE MATTER Of: Apperl rrom thcCoDmiitee on Cl,ims Resolution No.07-2012 denyitrt Pelilioner's
Petilion for Retiremetrl Benelils. ,\MADO l. SOLAMO. PetitioMr
Here, petitioner Solamo has only satisfied the first two
requisites but not the third requisite of satisfactory and meritorious
service because the Ombudsman in its Decision dated 1B October
2005, found the Petitioner administratively liable for grave
misconduct and dishonesty, which decision was affirmed by both
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and subsequently
attained finality on 10 July 2013. Clearly, Petitioner failed to render
satisfactory and meritorious service. Thus, he cannot demand
payment of any retirement benefits.
Anent Solamo's argument that Section 6 23 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 10154 which
authorizes the withholding of retirement benefits of government
employees with pending administrative cases, is not applicable to
him, the same is nol persuasive.
The pendency of Solamo's administrative case before the
Court of Appeals does not put him beyond the ambit of the
23 Section 6. Retiring Employees with Pending Cases. "Retirement benefits ofretiring employees may only be withheld if the employee has a pendingadministrative case, the outcome of the case involves a possible pecuniaryliability on the part of the employee and the law specifically authorizes thewithholding of the retirement benefits. In no case, however, shall theterminal/accrued leave benefits of a retiring employee withheld because of apending administrative case.
The head of agency where the administrative case against a retiringemployee is pending shall ensure that the said case is terminated/resolvedwithin a period of three (3) months from the effectivity date of retirement ofthe concerned employee. After the lapse of such period and the case has notyet been terminated/resolved, without justifiable reason/s and/or without faultor delay attributable to the retiring employee, the retirement benefits due shallbe immediately released to him/her without prejudice to the outcome of thecase. The concerned quasi-judicial agency where the case is pending shalldetermine and resolve issues pertaining to aforesaid faulVor delay."
GSIS Casc No. Ool-liIN THti MATTIjR OF: ppell frc lhe Commitlee on Cliims Resolulion No 07-2012 denyitrg Pciitioner's
Pclitior for Reliren.nt Bcnefiis. AlttADO Nl. SOLAltlo, Petitioter
provisions of RA No. lOI54z4 which authorizes the withholding of
the retirement benefits of employees with pending administrative
cases.
Sec. 6 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No.
10154 applies to all employees with pending case, the outcome of
which involves a possible pecuniary liability on the part of the
employee. It mandates the head of agency to ensure the
administrative case is resolved within a period of three (3) months
from the effective date of retirement. After the lapse of such
period, the retirement benefits shall be released without prejudice
to the outcome of the case.
The foregoing provision is irrelevant to Petitioner's case.
The administrative case was resolved prior to Petitioner's
retirement. The decision in administrative case which carried the
accessory penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits is
immediately executory.
Hence, there is no withholding to speak of within the
contemplation of the law but an actual forfeiture of retirement
-benefits in order to enforce the immediately executory decision in
the administrative case.
Finally, on the issue of whether the disapproval of petitioner
Solamo's application for retirement benefits constitutes deprivation
24 An Act Requiring All ConcernedRelease Of The Retirement Pay,Retiring Government Employees.
Government agencies To Ensure The EarlyPensions, Gratuities And Other Benefits Of
OsIs Case No. ool-13IN THE MATTER OF! App..l from lh. CommittE or Cl.im3 Resolotion No. 07-2012 denyins P.fitioner's
P.tiliotr lor Retiremena Benefi&. AMADO M. SOLAMO, P4 ion.t
of substantive and procedural rights in violation of equal protection
clause, we rule in the negative. Petitioner just made a general
averment of the alleged violation of his right to equal protection
without any evidentiary support and substantiation. The basic rule
is that mere allegation is not evidence.
Further, the purpose of the equal protection clause is to
secure every person within a state's jurisdiction against intentional
and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express
terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's
duly-constituted authorities. 2s
Here, the forfeiture of Petitioner's retirement benefits is
mandated by law specifically under Sec. 13 of RA No. 3019 and
Sec. 5B, Rule IV of the URACCS, which applies to all other
government employees similarly situated. Petitioner was not in
anyway discriminated when the foregoing provisions were imposed
and his retirement benefits were forfeited. Thus, there is no
violation to speak of.
All told, Petitioner is not entitled to any retirement benefits
in view of the penalty of dismissal imposed on him by the
Ombudsman which found him administratively liable for grave
misconduct.
25.]ose Miguel T. Arroyo vs. Department OfJustice, G.R. No. 199082, September18,2012.
,.i
GSIS Case No. OOl-13tN THE MA'I'rER OF: App..l lrom lhe Conmill!. on Cl.iD! Rsolutiotr No. 07-2012 deDying Pctiiober's
Pelilion for R.tir.m.rt B.nefiG AMADO M. SOLAMO, Petitioaer
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed for Iack of
merit. The CoC Resolution No. 07-20L2 dated 20 March 2Ol2 is
hereby affirmed with modifications. Petitioner is not entitled to
retirement benefits because the penalty of Dismissal from Sewice
imposed by the Ombudsman in its Decision dated 1B October 2005
in OMB-M-A-04-2L6-1 finding him administratively liable for grave
misconduct and dishonesty, carries the penalty of forfeiture of
retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
Pasay City, I 2 FEB 2015
DANIEL L. LACSON, JR.*Chairman
ROBERTICe
l)Jc. vn$anaChairman
u
"(
ELISEATrust
' 4n^,c0zf,r.r
XKARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID
Trustee
GERALDINE MARIE BERBERABE-MARTINEZTrustee
5$.\'. - \ I \r
OMAN FEL
* Did not participate in the discussion.
fum"sk
Page 16
CSIS Case No. dr1'73IN TttE MATIER Of! App..l frod th. Cornll.c. or ctit[! R..ohdo! No. 0?'2012 d..vfu Pdnhr.r't
Pdldor for n drtn a.r.6E AMADO M. SOLAMO, P.,n o,.'
Copy furnished:
ATTY. AMN)O SOIJ\MOPetitionerDoor 2 G/F, Lopez Bldg.,Cor. Candelaria & Maya Sta.,Ecoland II, Davao City
PROSECUTION AND QUASI JUDICIALCASES DEPARTMENT, LEGAL SERVICES GROUPGovernment Service Insurance SystemFinancial Center, Pasay City 1308
\\
* Did not partlcipate ln the discussiou.
csls Case No. ool-13IN THE MATTER OF: Appett frcm the Comnilte. on ClriD! R.solulion No. 07'2012 dlnviry P'litioner's
P.ririon for Rctiremlhi Bcr.tib. AMADO M. SOLAMO, Pt ,io,rt'
CERTIFICATION
I, BERNADETH R. BISOC, Attorney IV of the GSIS Legal ServicesGroup, having been assigned (to draft a Decision in GSIS Board ofTrustees Case No. 001-13 entitled "Amado M' Solamo vs. GSISCommittee on Claims" hereby certify that the statement of factsherein stated and being presented before this Board is based onthe records of the case, the pleadings and other documentssubmitted by the parties.
This certification is issued in compliance with Board Resolution No.
198-A adopted on September L5, 2004.
Pasay City, 21January 2015.
BERNADET BISOCHearing Officer
G S I S s#."# T"'il,1:,J,'J;?ll',ylflli,*f ls[[
OFFICD OF THE CORPORATE SECRETARY
E,XACT COPY OF RES. NO. 12 ADOPTED BY THE GSIS BOARD OF.TRUSTEES IN ITS MEETING NO. 3 HELD ON 12 FEBRUARY 2()15
Approval ofthe Declslon ln Board Case No. OOl-13, Inthe lfiatter of the Appeol from the Commlttee on ClalmsResolutlon denglng Petltloner's Petltlon for Release ofhls Retlrement Beneflts, Amado M. Solamo, Petitloner
RESOLUTION NO. ,lZ
WHEREAS, Mr. Amado M. Solamo filed aPetition before the GSIS Board of Trustees, docketedas Board Case No. 001-13, seeking to reverse and setaside Resolution No. O7-2O12 of the Committee onClaims (CoC) dated 20 March 2O 12, which affirmedthe disapproval of his application for release ofretirement benefits;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3O of R.A. No.8291, the GSIS has original and exclusive jurisdictionto settle any dispute arising from the application ofthe laws administered by the GSIS;
RESOLVED, to APPROVE and CONFIRM theDecision in Board Case No. 001-13, In the Motter oftLrc Appeal from the Committee on Claims Resolutiondenging Petitioner's Petition for Release of hisRetirement Benefits, Amado M. Solamo, Petitioner,the dispositive portion of which states:
"ACCORDINGLY, the petition is herebydismissed for lack of merit. The CoCResolution No. O7-2O12 dated 20 Marcln. 2Ol2is hereby affirmed with modifications.Petitioner is not entitled to retirement benefitsbecause the penalty of Dismissal from Service
BOARI' MEETING NO. 312 TEBRUARY 2015
Page 2(Res. No. l2- -20l5l
imposed by the Ombudsman in its Decisiondated 18 October 2005 in OMB-M-A-04-216-lfinding him administratively liable for gravemisconduct and dishonesty, carries the penaltyof forfeiture of retirement benefits."
..SO ORDERED."
A copy of the Decision in Board Case No. OO1-13 is attached and made an integral part of thisResolution.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:
ATTY. MARIA THERESA ABESAIIIIS-RAAGASCorporate Secretary
CONFIRMED:
Chairman
(on leave)
,w{RT G. VE&GARA ITARINA CONSTANTINO.I'AVID
*kffi{tTrustee
oFt
BOARI' MEETING NO. 312 FEBRUARY 2015
Page 3(Res. lYo. 12 -2()151
w,hW;""
GERALDINE MARIE BERBERABT-MAR'TINEZTrustee
l;t.i::-'-
OPG
ROMEO M. ALIP