Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    555 Hilarion Beronilla Vs GSIS

    Uploaded by

    Daryll Griff Ringor
    The petitioner sought to change his date of birth in GSIS records from 1898 to 1900. The GSIS general manager approved the change but the board of trustees later reversed this decision. The Supreme Court upheld the board's authority and dismissed the case, ruling that: 1) the board has superior authority over the general manager; 2) the government is not subject to claims of laches or estoppel; and 3) the petitioner's original date of birth should not be disturbed for equity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    555 Hilarion Beronilla Vs GSIS

    Uploaded by

    Daryll Griff Ringor
    19 views2 pages
    The petitioner sought to change his date of birth in GSIS records from 1898 to 1900. The GSIS general manager approved the change but the board of trustees later reversed this decision. The Supreme Court upheld the board's authority and dismissed the case, ruling that: 1) the board has superior authority over the general manager; 2) the government is not subject to claims of laches or estoppel; and 3) the petitioner's original date of birth should not be disturbed for equity.

    Original Description:

    Agrarian Laws and Social Legislation

    Original Title

    555 Hilarion Beronilla vs GSIS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner sought to change his date of birth in GSIS records from 1898 to 1900. The GSIS general manager approved the change but the board of trustees later reversed this decision. The Supreme Court upheld the board's authority and dismissed the case, ruling that: 1) the board has superior authority over the general manager; 2) the government is not subject to claims of laches or estoppel; and 3) the petitioner's original date of birth should not be disturbed for equity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views2 pages

    555 Hilarion Beronilla Vs GSIS

    Uploaded by

    Daryll Griff Ringor
    The petitioner sought to change his date of birth in GSIS records from 1898 to 1900. The GSIS general manager approved the change but the board of trustees later reversed this decision. The Supreme Court upheld the board's authority and dismissed the case, ruling that: 1) the board has superior authority over the general manager; 2) the government is not subject to claims of laches or estoppel; and 3) the petitioner's original date of birth should not be disturbed for equity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Hilarion Beronilla vs GSIS, its BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et.

    a;
    FACTS:

    - This case is a special civil action of prohibition seeking to declare Resolution No. 1497 of the Board of
    Trustees of GSIS as null and void. Said resolution considers Mr. Beronilla, herein petitioner, as having
    been compulsorily retired from service as Auditor of the Philippine National Bank. Petitioner had been a
    member of the GSIS for years. He was also assigned to other positions in the government.
    - In all his records, including the Member’s Service Record which he submitted to the GSIS, the
    petitioner uniformly indicated that his date of birth was January 14, 1898. On September 29, 1959, the
    petitioner requested the Commissioner of Civil Service, thru the Auditor General, that his date of birth
    be changed to January 14, 1900, because according to him, it was only in the year 1955 that he knew
    about his real birth date. Said request was sent by the Civil Service to the GSIS.
    - The Legal Counsel of GSIS denied said request. However, the petitioner tried to gather evidences to
    prove his real birthdate, and once again, showed them to the Legal Counsel of GSIS, but was still denied.
    - The petitioner appealed to the General Manager of the GSIS, Mr. Andal. The latter placed “OK” at the
    foot of the request, thereby indicating the approval of the request for change of birthdate. Because of
    such approval, notice of adjustments were sent to the Civil Service Commission. The adjustment
    included the issuance of a new life policy no. of the petitioner, therefore extending it.
    - For 3 years, the petitioner enjoyed the approval given by Mr. Andal. However, Mr. Mathay, the Auditor
    of the Central Bank advised the PNB about the service of the petitioner, who was continuously paid even
    after reaching the age of 65, which is the compulsory retirement age from the government service. This
    advice was sent to the Board of Trustees of GSIS. Upon knowing which, the Board of Trustees of GSIS
    adopted the disputed resolution of the Legal Counsel of GSIS, thereby denying the request for change of
    birthdate of the petitioner.

    ISSUE:
    - Whether the GSIS Board of Trustees acted within its powers when it reversed the approval of
    General Manager Andal of petitioner’s request for change of date of birth.

    HELD:
    - The Supreme Court decided to uphold the superior authority of the Board over the General
    Manager, hence, the petition is denied.
    - The Board of Trustees directly manages GSIS and the General Manager is only the chief
    executive officer of the Board, therefore, the approvals of the General Manager is subject to the
    concurrence of the Members of the Board of Trustees.
    - Although there were substantial changes made because of the approval made by Mr. Andal,
    these actions cannot make the GSIS guilty for laches or estoppel since as a general rule,
    actuations by the government do not create laches or estoppel. Further, it was only thru Mr.
    Mathay’s letter that the Board knew about Mr. Andal’s action.
    - For the sake of inequity, the Board was convinced that the originally recorded date of birth
    should not be disturbed, since said recorded date of birth was used uniformly by the petitioner
    decades back in all his official records.
    - With regards to the petitioner’s contention that he was denied due process as when he was not
    notified about Mr. Mathay’s letter, the court ruled that procedures established by GSIS does not
    require notice and hearing.
    - Finally, with regards to petitioner’s argument that the Board’s action impaired his constitutional
    right of the obligations of his contract, the court ruled that retirement of government
    employees is imposed by law and is not a result of any contractual stipulations.
    - Petition in this case is DISMISSED.

    You might also like