GSIS V de Leon

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v.
DE LEON
FACTS:
Respondent Fernando P. de Leon retired as Chief State Prosecutor of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1992, after 44 years of service to the government. He
applied for retirement under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910, invoking R.A. No. 3783, as
amended by R.A. No. 4140, which provides that chief state prosecutors hold the same
rank as judges. The application was approved by GSIS. Thereafter, and for more than
nine years, respondent continuously received his retirement benefits, until 2001, when
he failed to receive his monthly pension.
Respondent learned that GSIS cancelled the payment of his pension because
the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) informed GSIS that respondent was
not qualified to retire under R.A. No. 910; that the law was meant to apply only to
justices and judges; and that having the same rank and qualification as a judge did not
entitle respondent to the retirement benefits provided thereunder. Thus, GSIS stopped
the payment of respondent's monthly pension.
Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus before the CA. The CA found that
GSIS allowed respondent to retire under R.A. No. 910, following precedents which
allowed non-judges to retire under the said law. The CA further held that, under R.A.
No. 660, R.A. No. 8291, and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1146, respondent is entitled
to a monthly pension for life. He cannot be penalized for the error committed by GSIS
itself. Thus, although respondent may not be qualified to receive the retirement benefits
under R.A. No. 910, he is still entitled to a monthly pension under R.A. No. 660, P.D.
No. 1146, and R.A. No. 8291.
ISSUE: Whether respondent is entitled to retirement benefits – YES.
RULING:
The inflexible rule in our jurisdiction is that social legislation must be liberally
construed in favor of the beneficiaries. Retirement laws, in particular, are liberally
construed in favor of the retiree because their objective is to provide for the retiree's
sustenance and, hopefully, even comfort, when he no longer has the capability to earn a
livelihood. The liberal approach aims to achieve the humanitarian purposes of the law in
order that efficiency, security, and well-being of government employees may be
enhanced. Indeed, retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of
the persons intended to be benefited, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the retiree
to achieve their humanitarian purpose.
In this case, as adverted to above, respondent was able to establish that he has
a clear legal right to the reinstatement of his retirement benefits.
In stopping the payment of respondent's monthly pension, GSIS relied on the
memorandum of the DBM, which, in turn, was based on the Chief Presidential Legal
Counsel's opinion that respondent, not being a judge, was not entitled to retire
under R.A. No. 910. And because respondent had been mistakenly allowed to receive
retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910, GSIS erroneously concluded that respondent
was not entitled to any retirement benefits at all, not even under any other extant
retirement law. This is flawed logic.
Respondent's disqualification from receiving retirement benefits under R.A. No.
910 does not mean that he is disqualified from receiving any retirement benefit under
any other existing retirement law.
The CA, however, incorrectly held that respondent was covered by R.A. No.
8291. R.A. No. 8291 became a law after respondent retired from government service.
Hence, petitioner and even respondent agree that it does not apply to respondent,
because the law took effect after respondent's retirement.
Prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8291, retiring government employees who were
not entitled to the benefits under R.A. No. 910 had the option to retire under either of
two laws: Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by R.A. No. 660, or P.D. No. 1146.
In his Comment, respondent implicitly indicated his preference to retire
under P.D. No. 1146, since this law provides for higher benefits, and because the same
was the latest law at the time of his retirement in 1992. Under P.D. No. 1146, to be
eligible for retirement benefits, one must satisfy the following requisites:
Section 11. Conditions for Old-Age Pension. —
(a) Old-age pension shall be paid to a member who:
(1) has at least fifteen years of service;
(2) is at least sixty years of age; and
(3) is separated from the service.
Respondent had complied with these requirements at the time of his retirement.
GSIS does not dispute this. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to receive the benefits
provided under Section 12 of the same law.
In a pension plan where employee participation is mandatory, the prevailing view
is that employees have contractual or vested rights in the pension where the pension is
part of the terms of employment. The reason for providing retirement benefits is to
compensate service to the government. Retirement benefits to government employees
are part of emolument to encourage and retain qualified employees in the government
service. Retirement benefits to government employees reward them for giving the best
years of their lives in the service of their country.
Thus, where the employee retires and meets the eligibility requirements, he
acquires a vested right to benefits that is protected by the due process clause. Retirees
enjoy a protected property interest whenever they acquire a right to immediate payment
under pre-existing law. Thus, a pensioner acquires a vested right to benefits that have
become due as provided under the terms of the public employees' pension statute. No
law can deprive such person of his pension rights without due process of law, that is,
without notice and opportunity to be heard.
Retirement benefits are a form of reward for an employee's loyalty and service to
the employer, and are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his
life, lessening the burden of having to worry about his financial support or upkeep. A
pension partakes of the nature of "retained wages" of the retiree for a dual purpose: to
entice competent people to enter the government service; and to permit them to retire
from the service with relative security, not only for those who have retained their vigor,
but more so for those who have been incapacitated by illness or accident.
The foregoing disquisition draws even greater force from subsequent

developments. While this case was pending, the Congress enacted Republic Act No.
10071, the Prosecution Service Act of 2010. On April 8, 2010, it lapsed into law without
the signature of the President, pursuant to Article VI, Section 27 (1) of the Constitution.
Section 24 of R.A. No. 10071 provides:
Section 24. Retroactivity. — The benefits mentioned in Sections 14 and 16
hereof shall be granted to all those who retired prior to the effectivity of this Act.
By virtue of this express provision, respondent is covered by R.A. No. 10071. In
addition, he is now entitled to avail of the benefits provided by Section 23, that "all
pension benefits of retired prosecutors of the National Prosecution Service shall be
automatically increased whenever there is an increase in the salary and allowance of
the same position from which he retired."
Respondent, as former Chief State Prosecutor, albeit the position has been
renamed "Prosecutor General," should enjoy the same retirement benefits as the
Presiding Justice of the CA, pursuant to Section 14 of R.A. No. 10071, to wit:
Section 14. Qualifications, Rank and Appointment of the Prosecutor General. —
The Prosecutor General shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank,
category, prerogatives, salary grade and salaries, allowances, emoluments, and other
privileges, shall be subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications, and shall enjoy
the same retirement and other benefits as those of the Presiding Justice of the Court of
Appeals and shall be appointed by the President.
Furthermore, respondent should also benefit from the application of Section 16 of
the law, which states:
Section 16. Qualifications, Ranks, and Appointments of Prosecutors, and other
Prosecution Officers. — . . . .
Any increase after the approval of this Act in the salaries, allowances or
retirement benefits or any upgrading of the grades or levels thereof of any or all of the
Justices or Judges referred to herein to whom said emoluments are assimilated shall
apply to the corresponding prosecutors.
Lastly, and most importantly, by explicit fiat of R.A. No. 10071, members of the
National Prosecution Service have been granted the retirement benefits under R.A. No.
910, to wit:
Section 25. Applicability. — All benefits heretofore extended under Republic Act
No. 910, as amended, and all other benefits that may be extended by the way of
amendment thereto shall likewise be given to the prosecutors covered by this Act.
Hence, from the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 10071, respondent should be
entitled to receive retirement benefits granted under R.A. No. 910.
Consequently, GSIS should compute respondent's retirement benefits from the
time the same were withheld until April 7, 2010 in accordance with P.D. No. 1146; and
his retirement benefits from April 8, 2010 onwards in accordance with R.A. No. 910.

GSIS V de Leon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GSIS V de Leon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GSIS V de Leon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v.

ISSUE: Whether respondent is entitled to retirement benefits – YES.

The foregoing disquisition draws even greater force from subsequent

You might also like