. ' ·-

REPUBUKA NG PILIPINAS PASEGURUHAN NG MGA NAGLILINGKOD SA

PAMAHAIAAN (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM)

BOARD OF TRUSTEES FINANCIAL CENTER, ROXAS BOULEVARD, PASAY CfiY

IN 'IHE ft:fAITER OF: PETI710N FOR SECOND RE71REMENT UNDER R.A. NO. 8291 AFTER HAVING PREVIOUSLY RETIRED AND RECEIVED BENEFITS UNDER R.A. N0.1616

FERNANDO L. MORALES, Petitioner.

GSIS CASE NO. 008-07

){-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------){

RESOLUTION

Before us is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by

petitioner Fernando L. Morales of the Decision dated 5 August

2009 denying his petition for a second retirement on 1 December

2006 under R.A. No. 8291 after having previously retired on 4

February 1998 and having received benefits under R.A. No. 1616.

Briefly, petitioner Morales first entered government service

as Administrative Officer on 15 June 1970. He retired on 4

February 1998 under R.A. No. 1616. He was re-employed on 8

April 1999 as City Secretary, Office of the City Council of Bais City

and was compulsorily retired on 1 December 2006 upon reaching

the age of 65 years.

/ .. .

He applied for retirement benefit and old age pension under

R.A. No. 8291 and claimed that he had a combined creditable

service of 35 years and two (2) months, including those covered

by his previous retirement.

The GSIS Dumaguete Field Office denied the application on

the ground that the petitioner was considered a new entrant when

he was re-employed on 8 April 1999. He requested

reconsideration but the same was denied. Hence, he filed a

Petition before the Board of Trustees (BOT).

In its Decision dated 5 August 2 009, the BOT denied the

Petition and ruled that petitioner was considered a new entrant to

the government service having previously retired and received

benefits and having re-entered government service on 8 April

1999 or after R.A. No. 8291 took effect on June 24, 1997. His

previous years of service in government for which he received the

gratuity benefit under R.A. No. 1616 were rightfully excluded in

the computation of benefits due under R.A. No. 8291 pursuant to

Section 10(b) of Section 1 thereof in relation to Section 5.2, Rule

V1 and Section 8.6, Rule VIII 2 of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 8291.

1 Effects of Re-employment. All service credited for retirement, resignation or separation for which corresponding benefits have been awarded shall be excluded in the computation of service in case of re-employment.

2 Effect of Re-employment - When a retiree is re-employed. his/her previous services credited at the time of his/her retirement shall be excluded in the computation of future benefits. In effect. he/she shall be considered a new entrant. (Emphasis supplied .)

2

. . .

of the Decision dated 5 Petitioner seeks reconsideration

. that (1) the Decision is against the law and August 2009, argumg

not supported by jurisprudence, and that he was denied due

process of law: and (2) Section lO(b) of R.A. No. 8291 and the

implementing rules and regulations are unconstitutional.

In its Comment, the GLO argued that (1) the assailed

Decision was rendered on the basis of law and applicable

provisions of R.A. No. 8291 and its IRR and that the Laraflo Case

is inapplicable as it applies only to those GSIS members who are

entitled to claim the retirement benefits under R.A. No. 1616 and

the Early Retirement Incentive Program of MWSS as a result of

reorganization; (2) there was no denial of due process as formal or

trial type hearing is unnecessary in administrative proceedings

and petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain

his side; and (3) Section 10 (b) of R.A. No. 8291 enjoys the

presumption of constitutionality unless declared otherwise by the

Supreme Court and that petitioner is estopped from impugning

the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8291 after previously accepting

benefits from the same law.

After a careful examination of the arguments in the Motion

for Reconsideration, we find no cogent reason to deviate from our

earlier Decision.

We correctly denied petitioner's claim for a second

retirement based on clear and unequivocal provisions of law. In

3

..

case of subsequent retirement of a GSIS member, Section 10(b) of

R.A. No. 8291 and the related implementing rules and regulations

undoubtedly exclude from the computation of service, all services

credited for previous retirement where he had received the

corresponding benefits as he is considered a new entrant. The

clarity of said provisions precludes any other interpretation.

Under the principles of statutory construction, if a statute is clear,

plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning

and applied without attempted interpretation. This plain meaning

rule or verba legis, derived from the maxim index animo sermo est

(speech is the index of intention), rests on the valid presumption

that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly

express its intent by the use of such words as are found in the

statute. Verba legis non est recedendum, or, from the words of a

statute there should be no departure.3

The case of Laraiio vs. COA 4 cited by petitioner is

inapplicable to the present case and has a different factual milieu

from this case. Unlike petitioner's case, there are no issues on re-

employment and second retirement in government in the Laraiio

Case. The issue in said case concerns the eligibility of MWSS

employees to avail of a retirement law (R.A. 1616) and a company

early retirement program resulting from a reorganization, which

is not at issue in this case.

3 SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION a nd SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM vs. TERESA G. FA VILA, G.R. No. 1701 95 . March 28, 2011. 4 540 SCRA 553, December 18, 2007.

4

·. . .

Petitioner's contention that he was deprived of due process

due to absence of a formal trial is also bereft of merit.

The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is

the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of

the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are

given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered,

the demands of due process are sufficiently met. 5 One may be

heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps

even many times more creditably and practicable than oral

argument, through pleadings. 6

Records show that petitioner was required, and had

submitted, a Position Paper to articulate his positions and

arguments. It must also be emphasized that a formal hearing is

not mandatory but only discretionary under Section 14.18.1, Rule

XIV of the IRR of R.A. No. 8291. Petitioner's present Motion for

Reconsideration is another avenue for petitioner to seek a review

or reconsideration of our Decision and is still part of due process

accorded to petitioner.

Equally bereft of any merit is petitioner's contention that

Section 10(b) of R.A. No. 8291 and its related implementing rules

and regulations are unconstitutional. Unless said provisions are

declared unconstitutional by the courts, they are presumed to be

5 LORNA A. MEDINA. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COAl. G.R. No. 1764 78. February 4, 2008. 6 CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM (MWSS) vs. HON. OMBUDSMAN CONRADO M. VASQUEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE LARGE DIAMETER PRESSURE PIPE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (PLDPPMA), G.R No. 109113, january 25, 1995.

5

valid and constitutional under the principle of presumption of

constitutionality of statutes and administrative issuances, such as

the implementing rules and regulations of R.A. No. 8291.

Every statute is presumed valid. On the party challenging

its validity weighs heavily the onerous task of rebutting this

presumption. Any reasonable doubt about the validity of the law

should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality. To doubt is to

sustain, as tersely put by Justice George Malcolm. 7

Likewise, administrative issuances have the force and effect

of law. They benefit from the same presumption of validity and

constitutionality enjoyed by statutes. These two precepts place a

heavy burden upon any party assailing governmental regulations.

The burden of proving unconstitutionality rests on such party. 8

Other than loosely citing a couple of constitutional

provisions on State Policies on labor and social justice, petitioner

failed to show why the said provisions are unconstitutional and

failed to overcome the presumption of the validity and

constitutionality of Section lO(b) of R.A. No. 8291 and its

implementing rules and regulations.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby

DENIED.

7 ALFREDO T. ROMUALDEZ vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Fifth Division) and the PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 152259, j uly 29, 2004. 8 JAMES MIRASOL, et a l vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS and TOLL REGULATORY BOARD, G.R. No. 158793. june 8, 2006

6

·.

R

SO ORDERED.

Pasay City, Philippines, ___ 2_5_ A_UG_ 2_01_l __ /v ,..,.L,.~. IACSON, JR. L/Lc~airman

ERTG.~ Vice-Chairman

~~~~ DAVID Trustee

----&.

GERALDINE MARIE BERBERABE-MARTINEZ

Trustee

DANILO A. GOZO Trustee

FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III* Trustee

*Did not participate and vote in the deliberation.

7

.. . ..

Copy furnished:

FERNANDO L. MORALES No. 949 Aguinaldo St., Bais City

ATIY. CESAR R. RESENTES Counsel for Petitioner No. 181 J. Luna Street 6202 Bais City

ATIY. MEL ABNIR G. AMADORA GSIS Dumaguete Field Office Dumaguete City

8

I

' .

CERTIFICATION

I, LUCIO L. YU, JR, a Legal Officer V in the GSIS Law Office,

having been assigned as Hearing Officer to draft the Decision in

GSIS Board of Trustees Case Nos. 008-07 entitled "IN THE

MATTER OF: PETITION FOR SECOND RETIREMENT UNDER

R.A. 8291 AFTER HAVING PREVIOUSLY RETIRED AND

RECEIVED BENEFITS UNDER R.A. NO. 1616 (Petitioner­

FERNANDO L. MORALES) " 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 this , in

compliance with Board Resolution No. 198-A adopted on

September 15, 2004.

Pasay City, ________ _

9

- -- <1- .-. --·· __ .......... ,.,., .. . ........,; ""''--L'1't'l.ff•'·'

PASEGURUHAN NG MGA NAGLILINGKOD SA PAMAHALAAN (GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM) Financial Center, Pasay City, Metro Manila 1308

_, r•· r,~··'-"'>"1. , ' - ·.-..·~· _ .. ,,( - •l·V>. • ·• '• •; - '\:J_ .. .. .• ,..... •

~~sj ·. -OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE SECRETARY

EXACT COPY OF RES. NO. 190 ADOPTED BY THE GSIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN ITS MEETING NO. 16 HELD ON AUGUST 25,2011

Resolution in GSIS Case No. 008-07, entitled "In the Matter of: Petition for Second Retirement under R.A. No.

8291 After Having Previously Retired and Received Benefits under R.A. No. 1616"

RESOLUTION NO. 190

RESOLVED, to APPROVE and CONFIRM the Resolution in GSIS Case No. 008-07, Fernando L. Morales, Petitioner, entitled "In the Matter of· Petition for Second Retirement under R.A. No. 8291 After Having Previously Retired and Received Benefits under R.A. No. 1616', the dispositive portion of which states:

"WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED."

A copy of the Resolution in GSIS Case No. 008-07 is attached and made an integral part of this Resolution.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

Corporate Secretary

CONFIRMED:

R04?G~ARA Vice-Chairman GSIS Board of Trustees