Beronilla V GSIS

Beronilla v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No.
L-21723, November 26, 1970, 146

PHIL 646-660
FACTS:
At the time of the filing of the present petition, petitioner was acting as and performing the duties of
Auditor of the Philippine National Bank. Before that, he had occupied many other positions in the
government and had been a member of the GSIS during all times required by law.
In his application for employment, his applications for life and retirement insurance as well as his
application to be allowed to take civil service examinations, ten times from 1917 to 1925, petitioner
uniformly indicated that his date of birth is January 14, 1898. He also indicated the same date of birth in
his Member's Service Record which he submitted to the GSIS.
On September 29, 1959, he requested the Commissioner of Civil Service, thru the Auditor General, that
his date of birth indicated in the records be changed to January 14, 1900. According to the petition, it
was only in 1955, before the demise of his mother that petitioner discovered that his true date of birth is
January 14, 1900; that his mother told him that in 1916, his uncle, Alvaro Beronilla, purchased a cedula
for him showing in the same that he was already 18 years old for the reason that his uncle wanted to
take advantage of his being able to vote for him in La Paz, Abra in 1919. This letter was endorsed by
the Commission to the GSIS for action "without the intervention of the Civil Service Commission."
In the GSIS, petitioner's letter-request was referred to the Legal Counsel who, denied the same since
"all official records point to January 14, 1898 as the birthday of Mr. Hilarion Beronilla." Upon learning
of this denial, petitioner submitted additional evidence to support his request. This additional evidence
notwithstanding, the Legal Counsel reiterated his former denial. Whereupon, petitioner appealed to the
General Manager of the System who at that time was Mr. Rodolfo Andal. Upon favorable
recommendation of the 2nd Assistant General Manager, Mr. F. G. Araña, in a memorandum dated May
30, 1960, on June 2, 1960, Mr. Andal placed "OK." at the foot thereof over his initials, thus indicating
approval of the requested change.
Based on this action of the General Manager, notes of the adjustment of the date of birth of petitioner to
January 14, 1900 were sent to the Auditor General and the Commissioner of Civil Service and the
proceeds of petitioner's policy was re-computed The Legal Counsel whose title and rank had been
meanwhile changed to Assistant General Manager for Legal Affairs later communicated the aforesaid
decision of the General Manager to the Philippine National Bank on November 2, 1962 and the Deputy
Auditor General on November 12, 1962, by letter and indorsement, respectively. As emphasized by
petitioner, in the letter to the Philippine National Bank, it is stated that "his date of birth has been
adjusted by this office, after careful study and deliberation." On the other hand, in the 2nd indorsement
to the Deputy Auditor General, it was made clear that relative to petitioner's life insurance policy No.
N-2065 which had matured on November 30, 1957, corresponding adjustment or recomputation of the
maturity value had been effected on the basis of his changed date of birth. In the meantime, upon
application of petitioner, on October 1, 1960, he was issued a new life policy No. 335778 indicating his
date of birth as January 14, 1900. Regarding his above-mentioned policy No. N-2065, on July 7, 1960,
demand was made upon petitioner to pay the System additionally the sum of P131.09, due to the
adjustment of his date of birth, which demand, petitioner promptly complied with.
Almost three years after Mr. Andal approved the change of petitioner's date of birth, more specifically,
on May 6, 1963, Mr. Ismael Mathay, then Auditor of the Central Bank detailed to the Philippine
National Bank, wrote the Board of Trustees of the GSIS about the service of petitioner and stated that
"in the course of the audit of the transactions of the Philippine National Bank, it was found that Mr.
Hilarion Beronilla has been continuously paid since January 15, 1963, his salary allowances and other
fringe benefits as Auditor of said Bank notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Beronilla has attained his
sixty-fifth (65th) birthday last January 14, 1963, the date of his automatic and compulsory retirement
from the government service as fixed under Republic Act No. 3096 approved June 16, 1961." On
August 9, 1963, the Board adopted the disputed resolution without even notifying petitioner of Mr.
Mathay's letter and without giving him any opportunity to be heard regarding the same.
Hence this special civil action for prohibition seeking to declare Resolution No. 1497 of the Board of
Trustee of the respondent Government Service Insurance System of August 9, 1963 to the effect that
petitioner "Mr. (Hilarion) Beronilla be considered compulsorily retired from the service (as Auditor of
the Philippine National Bank) effective January 14, 1963" as null and void for having been issued, in
the words of the petition, "in excess of the powers granted to it by law, a wanton abuse of discretion,
violation of contracts, removal or forced retirement without due process of law and to declare all acts
heretofore taken in implementation thereof also void, and to prohibit said respondent and its
representatives from carrying out or implementing the aforesaid resolution."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the GSIS Board of Trustees acted within its powers when it reversed the approval by
General Manager Andal of petitioner's request for the change of his date of birth, taking all
circumstances into account including petitioner's allegations of res adjudicata, laches, estoppel, denial
of due process and unconstitutional impairment of contractual obligations.
RULING:
Yes, the GSIS Board of Trustees acted within its powers.
After carefully going over the facts on record and considering all pertinent legal principles and statutory
provisions, particularly Commonwealth Act 186, the Charter of the GSIS, as amended, together with
the relevant resolutions of the Board of Trustees, We have decided to uphold the superior authority of
the Board over the General Manager and to dismiss this petition.
We do not deem it necessary to pass upon petitioner's initial proposition, pressed vigorously, to be sure,
to the effect that as between the previous denial by the Legal Counsel and the subsequent approval by
General Manager Andal of his request for the change of his date of birth in the records, the latter, which
was precisely the action on his appeal from the Legal Counsel's denial, should prevail. Even granting it
to be true that, pursuant to what is generally the practice and the rule, applications for retirement
annuities in the GSIS are subject to final approval by the General Manager after its being approved by
one of the Assistant General Managers and/or one or two Department Managers, 1 it is clear to Us that
under the GSIS charter, the General Manager's approval is not beyond review and reprobation by the
Board of Trustees. It must be borne in mind that under Section 16 of said charter, the System "shall be
managed by the Board of Trustees . . ." and Section 17 adds that the Board "shall have the following
powers and authority: (a) to adopt by-laws, rules and regulations for the administration of the System
and the transaction of its business."
By express statutory authority, the Board of Trustees directly manages the System and the General
Manager is only the chief executive officer of the Board. In the exercise of its power to adopt rules and
regulations for the administration of the System and the transaction of its business, the Board may lodge
in the General Manager the authority to act on any matter the Board may deem proper, but in no wise
can such conferment of authority be considered as a full and complete delegation resulting in the
diminution, much less exhaustion, of the Board's own statutorily-based prerogative and responsibility to
manage the affairs of the System and, accordingly, to decide with finality any matter affecting its
transactions or business.
WHEREFORE, the petition in this case is dismissed, with costs against petitioner, and the writ of
preliminary injunction issued herein is hereby dissolved.

Beronilla V GSIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beronilla V GSIS

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

Beronilla V GSIS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beronilla v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No.

L-21723, November 26, 1970, 146

You might also like