Gsis v. CSC
Gsis v. CSC
Gsis v. CSC
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
QUIASON, J.:
Before us are two petitions docketed as G.R. No. 98395 and G.R.
No. 102449. The petitions were consolidated since they
principally involved the same issue and parties.
We grant both petitions.
I
G.R. No. 98395
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules
of Court, to reverse and set aside four orders of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), namely: (1) the Resolution No. 90-642 dated
July 16, 1990, which resolved as creditable for retirement
purposes the service of private
respondent Manuel Baradero, who served as Sangguniang
Bayan member on a per diem basis from January 1, 1976 to
October 20, 1978; (2) the Order dated September 20, 1990
directing the implementation of CSC Resolution No. 90-642; (3)
the Order dated December 7, 1990 directing the President and
General Manager of petitioner Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt for the delay in the implementation of Resolution No.
90-642; and (4) the Resolution No. 91-526 dated April 23, 1991,
which dismissed petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order dated September 20, 1990.
Dr. Manuel Baradero was a government employee, who occupied
the position of Medical Officer IV in the Philippine Medical Care
Commission, until he reached the mandatory age of retirement of
65 years old.
He served the Philippine Army as an enlisted man from
November 17, 1942 until June 30, 1945. He resumed his
government career on January 1, 1976, when he was elected a
member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of La
Castellana, Negros Occidental. As such, he received per diem for
every session attended. He resigned from the Sangguniang
Bayan on October 10, 1976. On October 20, 1978, he was
Hence, this petition where the GSIS charges the CSC with grave
abuse of discretion in ruling that: (1) services rendered on a per
diem basis is creditable for purposes of retirement; and (2) it has
exclusive jurisdiction in the determination of services which are
creditable.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a "Manifestation and
Motion in Lieu of Comment," which submitted its position that the
law expressly excludes services rendered on per diem basis in
determining creditable government service for retirement
purposes.
The Solicitor General is of the opinion that the CSC's resolutions
and order crediting such services were in violation of the law, and
encroached on the power of the GSIS to administer and
implement retirement laws. He therefore recommended that the
instant petition be given due course (Rollo, p. 100).
CSC Resolution
No. 89-368.
Matilde Belo retired from the government service on February 2,
1988. At the time of her retirement, Belo was the Vice-Governor
of Capiz in a
hold-over capacity. She served as Governor of Capiz from
January 25, 1972 until February 1, 1988.
As an elected government official, Belo received a fixed salary of
P13,000.00 per annum from January 25, 1976 until December 31,
1976. Thereafter, she held the same position in a hold-over
capacity and was remunerated as follows: (1) from December 31,
1976 until January 1, 1979, she received per diem for every
session attended of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; and (2) from
December 31, 1979 until February 1, 1988, she received a fixed
salary ranging from P23,000.00 to P45,000.00 per annum (Rollo,
p. 25).
On August 6, 1991, the GSIS received the Order dated July 18,
1991, which directed its President and General Manager to show
cause why they should not be held in contempt for the delay in
the implementation of CSC Resolution No. 89-368 (Rollo, pp. 28).
The GSIS filed its "Manifestation/Explanation," alleging that it
cannot implement the resolution considering that it has a pending
petition for certiorari before this Court in the case of Dr. Baradero
(G.R. No. 98395), where the same issue was raised (Rollo, p.
30).
On October 3, 1991, the CSC issued an order finding the
President and General Manager of GSIS guilty of indirect
contempt. Both were meted a penalty of P1,000.00 fine for each
day of defiance until the implementation of Resolution No. 89368. The CSC noted that the mere pendency of the case of Dr.
Baradero cannot prevent the implementation of its resolution
unless this Court issues a temporary restraining order, and that
said case had nothing to do with the case of Belo (Rollo, p. 34).
In her comment, Belo insisted that CSC was correct in finding that
her services rendered on a per diem basis are creditable for
retirement purposes. She claimed that the case of Commissioner
Ferrer of the Social Security Commission applied to her case by
analogy.
She likewise contended that Executive Order No. 292
(Administrative Code of 1987) vests in the CSC jurisdiction over
matters regarding
the accreditation of government services. She particularly cites
Section 12, Chapter 3, Book V thereof which enumerates the
powers and functions of the CSC, among which is to:
xxx xxx xxx
17. Administer the retirement program for
government employees and accredit government
servicesand evaluate qualifications for retirement
(Emphasis supplied);
The GSIS filed the instant petition, charging the CSC with
committing the same errors in G.R. No. 98395.