..

..

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GOVERNMENTSER~CEINSURANCESYSTEM

FINANCIAL CENTER, ROXAS BOULEVARD, PASAY CITY

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

IN THE MATTER OF:

PETITION FOR THE REVERSAL OF TilE RESOLUTION OF TilE COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS (COC RESOLUTION NO. 17-2013), IN RE: ENTITLEMENT TO OLD AGE PENSION;

ADJUSTMENT AND/OR RECOMPUTATION OF RETIREMENT PROCEEDS BASED ON R.A. NO. 8291,

ARMANDO P. ABESAMIS LEONARDO B. MANUEL,

Petitioners.

GSIS CASE NO. 012-13

}(----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}(

DECISION

Before the Board is a Petition filed by Armando P. Abesamis and

Leonardo B. Manuel, appealing the April 30, 2013 Resolution No. 17-

2013 of the Committee on Claims (hereinafter, CoC), denying

Petitioners' request for the grant of supplementary retirement

benefits corresponding to those granted under Republic Act (R.A.) No.

8291 and other laws. Petitioners were former employees of the GSIS

who had previously availed of the GSIS Early Retirement/Separation

Incentive Plan '97 (GERSIP '97) and retirement under R.A. No. 1616.

The dispositive portion of said CoC Resolution reads:

..

..

..

..

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the prayer for (1) payment of old-age pension and (2) adjustment and recomputation of retirement proceeds under R.A. No. 8291 and other laws administered by the GSIS is hereby DENIED for lack of merit; and the prayer for the full implementation of the provisions of the 1991 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction .

FACTS OF THE CASE

The enactment of R.A. No. 8291 t, the GSIS Charter,

necessitated the reorganization of the GSIS to confonn to the

provisions of the same. Consequently, through the Reorganization

Technical Committee II (RTC II), a reorganization plan was crafted

and Board Resolution No. 379 dated September 5, 1997 was passed,

approving and confirming the GERSIP '97, the early

retirement/separation program rolled out to provide separation

packages for those employees of the GSIS who would be separated

due to the reorganization and to provide an option for other

employees who would want to retire early.

The GERSIP '97 provided the following incentives, to wit:

"a. For those who have satisfied the corresponding age and

length of service ("Magic 87") and choose to retire with pension

benefits under RA 660, the incentive equivalent to 150% of the

differential amount, determined on the basis of the formula

under EO 389, s . 1996, and the gross amount of the five-year

lump sum benefit corresponding to the guaranteed period of 5

years.

1 Became effective on June 24,1997.

2

"

b. For those who are qualified and choose to retire under RA

1616 only, the incentive shall be equivalent to 150% of the

amount of the retirement gratuity as computed in accordance

with the provisions of said law (RA 1616).

c. For those who are qualified and choose to retire under RA

8291 only, i.e. they are already 60 years of age with at least 15

years of creditable service, the incentive shall be equivalent to

150% of the five-year lump sum, as computed in accordance

with the provisions of the said law (RA 8291) .

d. For those who are not qualified for retirement under any of

the laws mentioned in the three categories enumerated above

the incentive shall be a gratuity equivalent to one month salary

for every year of service based on 150% of the highest monthly

salary rate actually received as a government employee."

Board Resolution No. 379likewise provides that:

"The payment of the GERSIP '97 benefits in accordance with

any of the categories mentioned above shall be on top of the

retirement benefits due the employees concerned (who shall be

then considered retired or separated from the service) under

the corresponding retirement laws cited. However, the

employees concerned shall not be barred from enjoying other

benefits to which they may be entitled either as a GSIS member

or as GSIS employees."

During that time, Petitioners, Armando P. Abesamis2 and

Leonardo B. ManueP, were employees of the GSIS. Petitioners were

among those GSIS employees who chose to retire under the GERSIP

'97, specifically under category h provided therein, which is related to

2 Previously assigned at the GSIS Cabanatuan City Field Office.

3 Previously assigned at the GSIS Home Office, Pasay City.

3

the incentive granted for R.A. No. 1616. RA. No. 16164 provides for

the grant of gratuity to the retiring employee in addition to the return

of the premiums paid to the GSIS, both the personal share with

interest and the government share, without interest.

Under GERSIP '97, they were paid the incentive of 150% of

.. their retirement gratuities computed based on R.A. No. 1616 in

addition to their respective retirement gratuities and return of

premiums as provided under R.A. No. 1616.

Petitioner Abesamis retired effective on March 16, 1998 and

received the following benefits:

a. Gratuity under R.A. No. 1616 in the amount of Php

b. 150% of the gratuity under R.A. No. 1616 in accordance with

GERSIP '97 in the amount ofPhp 1,202,748.14; and

c. Refund of retirement premiums in the amount of Php

Petitioner Abesamis received a total of One Million Six Hundred

4 Section 12 (c) of Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by RA 1616, was further amended by Republic Act No. 3096 (1961) and Republic Act No. 4968 (1967) to read:

(c) Retirement is likewise allowed to any official or employee, appointive or elective, regardless of age and employment status, who has rendered a total of twenty years of service, the last three years of which are continuous. The benefit shall, in addition to the return of his personal contributions with interest compounded monthly and the payment of the corresponding employer's premiums described in subsection (a) of Section five hereof, without interest, be only a gratuity equivalent to one month's salary for every year of the fust twenty years of service, plus one and one-half month' s salary for every year of service over twenty but below thirty years and two months' salary for every year of service over thirty years in case of employees based on the highest rate received and in case of elected officials on the rates of pay as provided by law. This gratuity is payable by the employer or office concerned which is hereby authorized to provide the necessary appropriation or pay the same from any unexpended items of appropriation or savings in its appropriation

4

. .

• I

..

A

..

"

Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Forty One Pesos and Sixty Nine

Centavos (P1,631,341.69) representing his retirement benefits under

GERSIP '97 and R.A. No. 1616, net of his accountabilities.

Petitioner Manuel's retirement became effective on November

30, 1997, for which he received the following benefits:

a. Gratuity under R.A. No. 1616 in the amount of Php

620,048.66;

b. 150% of the gratuity under R.A. No. 1616 in accordance with

GERSIP '97 in the amount of Php 930,072.99; and

c. Refund of retirement premiums in the amount of Php

102,325.07.

Petitioner Manuel received a total of One Million Three

Hundred Sixty One Thousand Three Hundred Ten Pesos and Seventy

Six Centavos (P1,361,310. 76) net of his accountabilities, also under

the GERSIP '97 and R.A. No. 1616.

Petitioners filed a petition on February 23, 2012, wherein they

alleged that they were entitled to retirement benefits provided for

under RA. No. 8291, particularly the old-age pension. They likewise

sought recomputation of their retirement benefits in accordance with

R.A. No. 8291 and the grant of other benefits under other retirement

laws. Petitioners invoked Board Resolution No. 379 dated September

5, 1997, particularly the provision, N(t)he payment of the GERSIP '97

benefits in accordance with any of the categories mentioned above

shall be on top of the retirement benefits due the employees

5

~. . . ·.

•.

..

"

concemed (who shall he then considered retired or separated from

the service) under the corresponding retirement Jaws cited. Howeve~

the employees concemed shall not he barred from enjoying other

benefits to which they may he entitled either as a GSIS member or as

GSIS employees': which supposedly guarantees their enjoyment of

the retirement benefits provided for under R.A. No. 8291 on top of

those already granted to and enjoyed by them under the GERSIP '97

and R.A. No. 1616.

On March 29, 2012, petitioners filed an Amended Petition

adding their claim for the full implementation of the 1991 Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa

sa GSIS and the GSIS Management .

On March 7, 2013, said Petition was referred to the CoC for

resolution.

On April 30, 2013, the Committee on Claims issued Resolution

No. 17-2013, denying Petitioners' claim for payment of old-age

pension and recomputation of retirement benefits under R.A. No.

8291 and other laws administered by the GSIS for lack of merit and

dismissing their claim with regard to the CBA for lack of jurisdiction.

On July 29, 2013, the Petitioners filed the instant Petition

assailing the CoC Resolution and reiterating their earlier allegations

that they are entitled to old-age pension under R.A. No. 8291 and are

likewise also entitled to a recomputation of retirement benefits using

the same law.

6

. .

'

In compliance with the Summons dated September 23, 2013,

the CoC through counsel filed its Answer praying for the dismissal of

this Petition and the affirmation of the CoC Resolution dated April 30,

2013. The CoC argued that Petitioners are not entitled to old-age

pension and other benefits under R.A. No. 8291 because Petitioners'

respective years of service in the government had already been

considered and credited in their favor in the computation of their

respective retirement benefits released in accordance with R.A. No.

1616 and GERSIP '97. As such, neither are they entitled to a

recomputation of retirement proceeds under R.A. No. 8291.

The CoC further stated that Petitioners were already refunded

their premium contributions pursuant to the provisions of RA. No.

1616; thus the social insurance link between the GSIS and the

Petitioners has already been severed, such that, Petitioners no longer

have any basis for claiming further benefits from the GSIS.

Moreover, the CoC alleged that Petitioners failed to change

their mode of retirement in accordance with P.D. No. 1146, as

amended, and Board Resolution No. 79 dated February 14, 1991

which explicitly provide for a one (1) year period from the date of

retirement within which to change the retiree's mode of retirement.

Thus, the CoC prayed for the dismissal of the instant Petition for lack

of merit.

7

"

..

..

..

On October 11, 2013, the CoC complied with a Subpoena Duces

Tecum5 and submitted the records of the CoC case to the Hearing

Officer.

Thereafter, a preliminary conference was held on November 13,

2013 where the parties entered into stipulations of fact and had their

respective documentary evidence marked. Petitioners also confirmed

during said conference that they were not appealing the dismissal of

the CoC of their claim for the full implementation of the CBA. Both

parties were subsequently ordered to submit their respective Position

Papers6•

ISSUE

The basic issue for resolution is whether the Petitioners are

entitled to avail of the retirement benefits under R.A. No. 8291 and

other GSIS retirement laws even after opting to retire under GERSIP

'97 through R.A. No. 1616.

DISCUSSION

The petition lacks merit. It is immediately apparent from their

allegations that Petitioners seek to be granted double retirement

benefits. Petitioners aver that they are still entitled to avail of the

benefits under R.A. No. 8291 and other retirement laws, for that

matter, even after opting to receive, and actually received, retirement

benefits under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 186 as amended by R.A.

5 Dated September 26, 2013. 6 Order dated November 27,2013.

8

'·

..

No. 1616. It is clear from the records, however, that both Petitioners'

respective periods of employment with the government consisted of

one continuous period of service. It is also immediately apparent from

the records that these same continuous periods of service for each of

the herein Petitioners were made the basis of the computation of the

respective benefits granted to them in accordance with R.A. No. 1616

and GERSIP '97. Thus, to consider the same periods (which have been

fully compensated) all over again in order to grant additional

retirement benefits to the Petitioners is tantamount to double

retirement.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that double retirement is not

allowed absent a clear and express provision of law unequivocally

granting the same. In fact in various cases, the Supreme Court has

reiterated and emphasized the governmental policy against the grant

of double retirement because it compensates an employee for exactly

the same contingency, taking into account exactly the same services

and covering exactly the same period. 7 Thus, the Supreme Court

elucidated that:

In previous cases, this Court has already laid down the rule that "in the absence of an express legal exception, pension and gratuity laws should be so construed as to preclude any person from receiving double pension." Thus, in Anciano vs. Otahoy, wherein the claimant prayed that he be paid by the municipality gratuity benefits under the Osmeiia Retirement Law (Act No. 2589), notwithstanding his prior receipt of retirement benefits under Commonwealth Act 186 for services rendered to the government; this Court held that even granting that he had already established his right to gratuity under Act 2589, he had consequently foreclosed or waived such right when he opted to receive instead gratuity benefits under the GSIS Act. The Court, speaking thru Mr. justice Fred Ruiz Castro, said:

7 Anciano vs. Otadoy, L-21267, February 28, 1969; Borromeo vs. GSIS, L-11001, November 23, 1960.

9

.. ·'.

"

..

social benefits provided under said law10, thereby eradicating the

occasion for double retirement. P.D. No. 1146, as amended, likewise

adhered to the governmental policy against double retirement or

double pension by providing employees, who had been in the

government service on or before its effectivity11, the right to choose

their retirement law, as expressly provided under its Section 13, as

amended12, to wit:

Sec. 13. Retirement Option. Employees who are in the

government service upon the effectivity of this Act shalt at the

time of their retirement have the option to retire under this

Act or under Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, and

their benefits and entitlement thereto shall be determined in

accordance with the provisions of the law so opted: Provided,

however, That in the event of his re-employment, his

subsequent retirement shall be governed by the provisions of

this Act: Provided, further, That the member may change the

mode of his retirement within one year from the date of his

retirement in accordance with such rules and regulations as

may be prescribed by the System. (Emphasis supplied)

Under the foregoing, and corollary to the right to choose the

retirement law under which an employee may retire, the law likewise

allows employees who have chosen to retire under one law the right

to convert his/her retirement mode within one (1) year from the date

of retirement. 13 At most, then, Petitioners had the right to convert

their chosen retirement mode from C.A. No. 186 as amended by R.A.

No. 1616 to that provided under RA. No. 8291, within one (1) year

from the time of their respective retirements. Petitioner Abesamis

10 Section 28(b ). 11 May 31, 1977. 12 By P.D. No. 1981. 13 Section 13, P.D. No. 1146 as amended by P.D. No. 1981 "xxx That the member may change the mode of his retirement within one year from the date of his retirement in accordance with such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the System."

11

.. ..

..

retired in 1998 and Petitioner Manuel retired in 1997; clearly, their

right to convert their retirement mode to that under R.A. No. 8291

has long since prescribed. Hence, the Petitioners can no longer avail

of this option.

The grant of the right for conversion of retirement mode and the

period to exercise the same further confirms the exclusive alternative

character of the retirement modes under the different laws. It would

be absurd to grant a right to convert if the employees can actually

claim benefits under all of the retirement laws to which they qualify.

Moreover, R.A. No. 8291, the current applicable law, is not a

mere supplement of C.A. No. 186. The benefits granted under R.A.

No. 8291 are separate and distinct from and cannot be conveniently

added to the benefits granted under C.A. No. 186. The different

retirement packages under the different laws cannot be mixed and

matched at the pleasure of the retiree. A retiree's choice of one

necessarily inhibits the simultaneous enjoyment of the benefits

provided under the others.

The prohibition on double retirement is also in consonance with

the governmental policy embodied in Section 39 of R.A. No. 8291 on

the preservation and maintenance of the actuarial solvency of the

System, which ensures efficient and prompt payment of social security

benefits as they fall due. To grant to members the accumulated

benefits under all retirement laws will not only amount to double

retirement but would also greatly and unduly diminish the funds of

12

the GSIS, which, in turn, will put in peril the immediate and efficient

satisfaction of the claims of other GSIS members.

.. Petitioners' reliance on Board Resolution No. 379, dated

II

,.

September 5, 1997, as basis for entitlement to additional retirement

benefits under R.A. No. 8291, is misplaced. This resolution actually

recognizes the grant of options to the employees by setting forth

alternative incentives in relation to the various retirement laws. The

proviso invoked by Petitioners cannot be read separately but must be

read in context with the whole of the Board Resolution.

It is clear that the Board Resolution intended for GERSIP '97

availees to retire under their chosen retirement law and be paid

additional GERSIP '97 benefits corresponding to said chosen mode of

retirement. This is evident from the fact that Board Resolution No.

379 provided specific and alternative choices for incentives tied with

specific retirement laws14 and even provided an option for employees

not yet qualified to retire under any law.

The first part of the B.R No. 379 provision relied upon by

Petitioner states that "(t)he payment of the GERSIP '97 benefits in

accordance with any of the categories mentioned above shall he on

top of the retirement benefits due the employees concerned (who

shall he then considered retired or separated from the service) under

the corresponding retirement Ja ws cited. Jl Broken down, said

provision grants to qualified employees (1) GERSIP '97 benefits under

the alternative categories provided and (2) retirement benefits due to

14 C.A No. 186 in relation to R.A No. 660 or in relation to R.A No. 1616, R.A No. 8291

13

·.

employees under the corresponding retirement law chosen. The

records show that both Petitioners received ( 1) the GERSIP incentive

under category b thereof, amounting to 150% of their gratuity under

R.A. No. 1616 plus (2) their gratuity benefit and return of premiums

under R.A. No. 1616. Thus, it is evident that the Petitioners have

already received the benefits due them by virtue of R.A. No. 1616 and

GERSIP '97.

The second part of the B.R. No. 379 provision relied upon by

Petitioner states that, "(h) oweve~ the employees concerned shall not

he barred from enjoying other benefits to which they may he entitled

either as a GSIS member or as GSIS employees". Contrary to

Petitioners' claim that this portion entitles them to the additional

grant of old-age pension, the non-barring from enjoyment of benefits

refers only to those that "they may be entitled to" either as GSIS

members or as GSIS employees. The board resolution obviously does

not intend to confer additional entitlement but merely clarifies that

GERSIP '97 benefits shall not serve as a bar to the enjoyment of other

benefits (i.e., cash surrender value, terminal leave benefits, provident

fund benefits, etc.) that the GERSIP '97 availee may otherwise be

entitled to. The records show that even these benefits were already

received by Petitioners.

.• Clearly, the said Board Resolution grants no concession to the

employees of the GSIS who availed of the GERSIP '97 and retired

under their chosen law to likewise avail of the benefits granted under

a law which they did not choose in the first place. It is worth

emphasizing that the retirement benefits under R.A. No. 829t which

14

·.

.•.

Petitioners now insistently claim, were already available to them at

the time of their respective retirements. Petitioners were already

eligible to retire under R.A. No. 8291 but clearly preferred to retire

under R.A. No. 1616 instead.

The incentive corresponding to R.A. No. 8291 under GERSIP '97

as embodied in Board Resolution No. 379 was under option (c) of the

same. Nonetheless, Petitioners freely chose the retirement package

under C.A. No. 186 in relation to R.A. No. 1616, which was under

option (b), over that of the other retirement packages, including R.A.

No. 8291. In fine, in choosing to retire under C.A. No. 186 as

amended by R.A. No. 1616, the Petitioners have foregone the benefits

provided under both R.A. No. 660 and R.A. No. 8291.

'

The Petitioners not being entitled to the benefits of R.A. No.

8291, their auxiliary claim for readjustment and recomputation of

retirement benefits based on R.A. No. 8291 must also necessarily fail.

As to the sweeping claim for grant of other benefits under other GSIS

administered retirement laws, Petitioners failed to assert what they

are. Bare allegations without specification, much less substantiation,

·· do not merit attention.15 Indeed, Petitioners already received all the

benefits they are entitled to under R.A. No. 1616 and B.R. No. 379.

Ultimately, there being no legislative grant, the claim for double

retirement must necessarily fail. Petitioners are indubitably bound by

the choice they made more than fifteen years ago, having failed to

15 See Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Sarabia Manor Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 175844, July 29, 2013.

15

- .

·. avail of the right to convert their retirement mode within a year after

their respective retirements as prescribed by the law.

As a final note, the Board is mindful of the plight of retirees who

opted to retire under R.A. No. 1616, which offers no pension benefit.

However, the Board is duty-bound to enforce the mandate of the laws

the GSIS administers. Hence, the petition cannot be granted.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DISMISSED for

lack of merit and CoC Resolution No. 17-2013 dated April 30, 2013 is

affirmed.

RO

SO ORDERED.

RTG. VE~ARA ice Chairman

ROMEO M. ALIP Trustee

ei.G~~~ Tru"e!ftJN

IEL L. IACSON, JR. Chairman

~~~?\& KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID

Trustee

=;;~_ GERALDINE MARIE BERBERABE­

MARTINEZ Trustee

G~~~~ Trustee

16

':I . . .

FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III* Trustee

*Did not participate in the deliberations.

Copy furnished:

Mr. Armando P. Abesamis Petitioner c/o AGREE Foundation, Inc. Block 3 7, Lot 2 7 Diamond Village Anabu 11-F Imus, Cavite

Mr. Leonardo B. Manuel Petitioner c/o Rommel Manuel Blk. 19 Lot 48 15th Ave. Townhomes, Westpoint Subd. Brgy. De Ocampo Trece Martires, Cavite

Atty. Arvin H. Pajaron Prosecution and Quasi-Judicial Cases Department Legal Services Group GSIS Financial Center, Pasay City

Office of the Corporate Secretary GSIS Financial Center, Pasay City

17

' . ..

..

CERTIFICATION

t VANESSA JOY B. ONG PE-JONES, Attorney IV, of the GSIS Legal Services Group, having been assigned as the Hearing Officer to draft the Decision in GSIS Board of Trustees Case Nos. 004-12 entitled "In the Matter: Petition for the Reversal of the Resolution of the Committee on Claims (COG Resolution No. 1 7-2013}, in Re: Entitlement to Old-Age Pension; Adjustment and/or Recomputation of Retirement Proceeds based on RA 8291 '~ Armando P. Abesamis and Leonardo B. ManueL Petitioners" hereby certify that the statement of facts herein stated and being presented before this Board is accurate and true, based on the records of the case, the pleadings and other documents submitted by the parties.

This certification is issued in compliance with Board Resolution No. 198-A adopted on September 15, 2004.

Pasay City, january 23, 2014 .

VANESSA JOY B. ON Hearing Offi

NES

RESOLUTION NO. 45

BOARD MEETING NO. 7 10 APRIL 2014

Page 23

WHEREAS, Armando P. Abesamis and Leonardo B. Manuel filed a Petition before the Board, docketed as GSIS Case No. 012-13, appealing the Committee on Claims (CoC) Resolution No. 17-2013 denying their request for the grant of supplementary retirement benefits corresponding to those granted under R.A. No. 8291 and other laws;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 30 of R.A. No. 8291, the GSIS has original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising from the application of the laws administered by the GSIS;

RESOLVED, to APPROVE and CONFIRM the Decision in GSIS Case No. 012-13, entitled In the Matter of Petition for the Reversal of the Resolution of

OfflClAL COPY~

BOARD MEETING NO. 7 10 APRIL 2014

Page 24

the Committee on Claims (CoC Resolution No. 17-2013}, in Re: Entitlement to Old Age Pension, Armando P. Abesamis, Leonardo B. Manuel, Petitioners, the dispositive portion of which states:

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and CoC Resolution No. 17-2013 dated April 30, 2013 is afflrmed.

"SO ORDERED."

A copy of the Decision in GSIS Case No. 012-13 is attached and made an integral part of this Resolution.