Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    GSIS v. de Leon

    Uploaded by

    Roger Pascual Cuaresma
    This case involves Fernando P. de Leon, who retired as Chief State Prosecutor in 1992 after 44 years of government service. He received retirement benefits for over 9 years under RA 910, until 2001 when payments stopped. The GSIS claimed he was not entitled to benefits under RA 910 as that law only applies to judges. However, the Court found that while he may not qualify under RA 910, de Leon met the requirements of PD 1146 and was entitled to retirement benefits under that law instead. As de Leon had acquired vested rights after meeting eligibility requirements, the GSIS could not deprive him of his pension without due process. The Court upheld the CA's decision ordering the GSIS to resume paying

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    GSIS v. de Leon

    Uploaded by

    Roger Pascual Cuaresma
    46 views2 pages
    This case involves Fernando P. de Leon, who retired as Chief State Prosecutor in 1992 after 44 years of government service. He received retirement benefits for over 9 years under RA 910, until 2001 when payments stopped. The GSIS claimed he was not entitled to benefits under RA 910 as that law only applies to judges. However, the Court found that while he may not qualify under RA 910, de Leon met the requirements of PD 1146 and was entitled to retirement benefits under that law instead. As de Leon had acquired vested rights after meeting eligibility requirements, the GSIS could not deprive him of his pension without due process. The Court upheld the CA's decision ordering the GSIS to resume paying

    Original Title

    GSIS v. De Leon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Fernando P. de Leon, who retired as Chief State Prosecutor in 1992 after 44 years of government service. He received retirement benefits for over 9 years under RA 910, until 2001 when payments stopped. The GSIS claimed he was not entitled to benefits under RA 910 as that law only applies to judges. However, the Court found that while he may not qualify under RA 910, de Leon met the requirements of PD 1146 and was entitled to retirement benefits under that law instead. As de Leon had acquired vested rights after meeting eligibility requirements, the GSIS could not deprive him of his pension without due process. The Court upheld the CA's decision ordering the GSIS to resume paying

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    46 views2 pages

    GSIS v. de Leon

    Uploaded by

    Roger Pascual Cuaresma
    This case involves Fernando P. de Leon, who retired as Chief State Prosecutor in 1992 after 44 years of government service. He received retirement benefits for over 9 years under RA 910, until 2001 when payments stopped. The GSIS claimed he was not entitled to benefits under RA 910 as that law only applies to judges. However, the Court found that while he may not qualify under RA 910, de Leon met the requirements of PD 1146 and was entitled to retirement benefits under that law instead. As de Leon had acquired vested rights after meeting eligibility requirements, the GSIS could not deprive him of his pension without due process. The Court upheld the CA's decision ordering the GSIS to resume paying

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 2

    Government Service Insurance System v. Fernando P.

    De Leon
    G.R. No. 186560
    November 17, 2010

    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. 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.

    Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus before the CA, praying that petitioner be
    compelled to continue paying his monthly pension and to pay his unpaid monthly benefits from
    2001. The CA granted the petition. Petitioner GSIS is now before this Court, assailing the
    Decision of the CA and the Resolution denying its motion for reconsideration. GSIS argues that
    the writ of mandamus issued by the CA is not proper because it compels petitioner to perform an
    act that is contrary to law.

    ISSUE:

    Did the CA err in granting the petition for mandamus?

    HELD: In this case, respondent was able to establish that he has a clear legal right to the
    reinstatement of his retirement benefits. In stopping the payment of respondents monthly
    pension, GSIS relied on the memorandum of the DBM, which, in turn, was based on the Chief
    Presidential Legal Counsels 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.
    Respondents 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.
    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.
    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. To grant respondent these benefits does not equate to double retirement, as
    GSIS mistakenly claims. Since respondent has been declared ineligible to retire under R.A. No.
    910, GSIS should simply apply the proper retirement law to respondents claim, in substitution of
    R.A. No. 910.
    It must also be underscored that GSIS itself allowed respondent to retire under R.A. No. 910,
    following jurisprudence laid down by this Court.
    It must be emphasized that P.D. No. 1146 specifically mandates that a retiree is entitled to
    monthly pension for life.
    As this Court previously held: Considering the mandatory salary deductions from the
    government employee, the government pensions do not constitute mere gratuity but form part of
    compensation.
    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.

    You might also like