Case Digest (G.R. No. 186560)
Facts:
Government Service Insurance System v. Fernando P. De Leon, G.R. No. 186560, November 17, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) administered respondent Fernando P. de Leon's retirement after he retired in 1992 as Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice (DOJ) following 44 years of government service. Respondent applied for retirement under R.A. No. 910, and GSIS approved his retirement; he received pension payments from August 1997 until December 2001. In 2001 the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), relying on advice from the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, informed GSIS that Chief State Prosecutors were not covered by R.A. No. 910, and the DBM thereafter stopped remitting the funds for respondent’s pension; GSIS then ceased his monthly pension payments.
Respondent wrote GSIS repeatedly and, after receiving a November 9, 2007 letter from GSIS explaining GSIS’ position (that respondent had chosen to retire under R.A. 910 and that R.A. 8291 forbids double retirement), filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of Appeals (CA) to compel GSIS to resume paying his monthly pension and to pay arrears, and also prayed for damages against GSIS and DBM. In CA-G.R. SP No. 101811 the CA, in a Decision dated October 28, 2008, granted the petition and ordered GSIS to pay respondent his adjusted monthly pension “in accordance with other applicable law not under RA 910” and to pay the withheld back pensions adjusted to the applicable law. The CA reasoned that respondent had been allowed to retire under R.A. 910 through GSIS’ own actions and that, even if his retirement under R.A. 910 was erroneous, he was nonetheless entitled to a pension under GSIS-administered retirement laws (the CA cited R.A. No. 660, R.A. No. 8291, and P.D. No. 1146). GSIS’ motion for reconsideration was denied in a February 18, 2009 Resolution.
GSIS filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA’s grant of mandamus, disputing (among other things) that respondent had a clear legal right, that GSIS’ nexus to respondent was severed when it refunded premiums, that respondent had been unjustly enriched by prior R.A. 910 payments, and that conversion was impermissible under R.A. No. 8291. Respondent countered that he met eligibility requirements under P.D. No. 1146 (or R.A. No. 660), that GSIS could deduct any refunded contributions or require their return, and that any “conversion” was forced by DBM’s suspension of payments and therefore not the voluntary conversion barr...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for mandamus in the Court of Appeals procedurally proper—did respondent show a clear legal right to the relief sought?
- Is respondent entitled to have GSIS resume and pay his retirement benefits, and under which retirement law(s) should GSIS compute and pay (taking into account GSIS’ prior refund of premiums and the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 10071)?
- Does the prohibition on conversion under R.A. No. 8291 or GSIS’ refund of respondent’s contributions preclude GSIS from paying retirement be...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)