RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila

SECONDDIVISION
GOVERNMENTSERVICE
INSURANCESYSTEM,
Petitioner,

versus

FERNANDOP.DELEON,
Respondent.

G.R.No.186560

Present:

CARPIO,J.,
Chairman,
NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD,and

VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.

Promulgated:

November17,2010

xx

DECISION

NACHURA,J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[1]
PetitionerGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS)seeksthenullificationoftheDecision
[2]
datedOctober28,2008andtheResolution dated February 18, 2009 of the Court of Appeals
(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.101811.

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
providesthatchiefstateprosecutorsholdthesamerankasjudges.Theapplicationwasapproved

by GSIS. Thereafter, and for more than nine years, respondent continuously received his

by GSIS. Thereafter, and for more than nine years, respondent continuously received his
[3]
retirementbenefits,until2001,whenhefailedtoreceivehismonthlypension.

RespondentlearnedthatGSIScancelledthepaymentofhispensionbecausetheDepartment
of Budget and Management (DBM) informed GSIS that respondent was not qualified to retire
underR.A.No.910thatthelawwasmeanttoapplyonlytojusticesandjudgesandthathaving
the same rank and qualification as a judge did not entitle respondent to the retirement benefits
[4]
providedthereunder.Thus,GSISstoppedthepaymentofrespondentsmonthlypension.

RespondentwroteGSISseverallettersbuthereceivednoresponseuntilNovember9,2007,
whenrespondentreceivedthefollowingletterfromGSIS:

DearAtty.DeLeon:

Thisisinresponsetoyourrequestforresumptionofpensionbenefit.

ItappearsthatyouretiredunderRepublicActNo.910in1992fromyourpositionasChiefState
ProsecutorintheDepartmentofJustice.From1992to2001,youwerereceivingpensionbenefits
underthesaidlaw.Beginningtheyear2002,theDepartmentofBudgetandManagementthrough
thenSecretaryEmiliaT.Boncodinalreadyrefusedtoreleasethefundsforyourpensionbenefiton
thegroundthatChiefStateProsecutorsarenotcoveredbyR.A.910.Thisconclusionwaslateron
affirmedbySecretaryRolandoG.Andaya,Jr.inaletterdated6June2006.

In view of these, you now seek to secure benefits under Republic Act No. 660 or any other
applicableGSISlaw.

Weregret,however,thatwecannotaccedetoyourrequestbecauseyouhavechosentoretireandin
facthavealreadyretiredunderadifferentlaw,RepublicActNo.910,morethanfifteen(15)years
ago.ThereisnothingintheGSISlawwhichsanctionsdoubleretirementunlesstheretireeisfirst
reemployedandqualifiesonceagaintoretireunderGSISlaw.Infact,Section55ofRepublicAct
No. 8291 provides for exclusivity of benefits which means that a retiree may choose only one
retirementschemeavailabletohimtotheexclusionofallothers.

Nonetheless,webelievethatthepeculiaritiesofyourcaseisamatterthatmaybejointlyaddressed
or threshed out by your agency, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Budget and
Management.

Verytrulyyours,
(signed)
CECILL.FELEO
SeniorVicePresident
[5]
SocialInsuranceGroup

Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus before the CA, praying that petitioner be
compelledtocontinuepayinghismonthlypensionandtopayhisunpaidmonthlybenefitsfrom

compelledtocontinuepayinghismonthlypensionandtopayhisunpaidmonthlybenefitsfrom
[6]
2001.HealsoaskedthatGSISandtheDBMbeorderedtopayhimdamages.

IntheassailedOctober28,2008Decision,theCAresolvedtograntthepetition,towit:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The GSIS is hereby ordered to pay without delay
petitioner Atty. Fernando de Leon, his monthly adjusted pension in accordance with other
applicablelawnotunderRA910.Itisalsoorderedtopaythebackpensionswhichshouldalsobe
adjustedtoconformtotheapplicablelawfromthetimehispensionwaswithheld.

[7]
SOORDERED.

TheCAfoundthatGSISallowedrespondenttoretireunderR.A.No.910,followingprecedents
which allowed nonjudges to retire under the said law. The CA said that it was not respondents
fault that he was allowed to avail of the benefits under R.A. No. 910 and that, even if his
retirement under that law was erroneous, respondent was, nonetheless, entitled to a monthly
pensionundertheGSISAct.TheCAheldthatthiswasnotacaseofdoubleretirement,butmerely
a continuation of the payment of respondents pension benefit to which he was clearly entitled.
Since the error in the award of retirement benefits under R.A. 910 was not attributable to
respondent,itwasincumbentuponGSIStocontinuedefrayinghispensioninaccordancewiththe
appropriatelawwhichmightapplytohim.ItwasunjustforGSIStoentirelystopthepaymentof
[8]
respondentsmonthlypensionwithoutprovidinganyalternativesustenancetohim.

TheCAfurtherheldthat,underR.A.No.660,R.A.No.8291,andPresidentialDecree(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
retirementbenefitsunderR.A.No.910,heisstillentitledtoamonthlypensionunderR.A.No.
[9]
660,P.D.No.1146,andR.A.No.8291.
Petitioner GSIS is now before this Court, assailing the Decision of the CA and the Resolution
denyingitsmotionforreconsideration.

GSISadmitsthatrespondentreceivedmonthlypensionsfromAugust1997untilDecember2001.
Thereafter,theDBMrefusedtoremitthefundsforrespondentspensiononthegroundthathewas
not entitled to retire under R.A. No. 910 and should have retired under another law, without
[10]
howeverspecifyingwhichlawitwas.
ItappearsthattheDBMdiscontinuedthepaymentof
respondentspensiononthebasisofthememorandumoftheChiefPresidentialLegalCounselthat

ChiefProsecutorsoftheDOJarenotentitledtotheretirementpackageunderR.A.No.910.

Becauseofthediscontinuanceofhispension,respondentsoughttoconverthisretirement
[11]
underR.A.No.910tooneunderanotherlawadministeredbyGSIS.
However,thisconversion
was not allowed because, as GSIS avers, R.A. No. 8291 provides that conversion of ones
retirement mode on whatever ground and for whatever reason is not allowed beyond one year
fromthedateofretirement.

GSISassailstheCAsDecisionfornotspecifyingunderwhichlawrespondentsretirement
benefitsshouldbepaid,thusmakingitlegallyimpossibleforGSIStocomplywiththedirective.
[12]
Itthenraisesseveralargumentsthatchallengethevalidityoftheappellatecourtsdecision.

GSISargues,first,thattheCAerredinissuingawritofmandamusdespitetheabsenceof
anyspecificandclearrightonthepartofrespondent,sincehecouldnotevenspecifythebenefits
[13]
towhichheisentitledandthelawunderwhichheismakingtheclaim.

Second,GSISallegesthatithadrefundedrespondentspremiumpaymentsbecauseheopted
to retire under R.A. No. 910, which it does not administer. Thus, GSIS posits that the nexus
between itself and respondent had been severed and, therefore, the latter cannot claim benefits
[14]
fromGSISanymore.

Third,GSIScontendsthattheCAerredinconcludingthatrespondentwouldnotbeunjustly
enrichedbythecontinuationofhismonthlypensionbecausehehadalreadybenefitedfromhaving
erroneouslyretiredunderR.A.No.910.GSISpointsoutthatithadrefundedrespondentspremium
contributions. When the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel concluded that respondent was not
entitledtoretireunderR.A.No.910,itwasimplicitrecognitionthatrespondentwasactuallynot
[15]
entitledtotheP1.2millionlumpsumpaymenthereceived,whichheneverrefunded.

Fourth, GSIS points out that the CA erred in concluding that respondent was not seeking
conversion from one retirement mode to another. It reiterates that R.A. No. 8291 expressly
prohibits conversion beyond one year from retirement. To compel GSIS to release respondents
retirement benefits despite the fact that he is disqualified to receive retirement benefits violates

retirement benefits despite the fact that he is disqualified to receive retirement benefits violates
R.A.No.8291,andwouldsubjectitsofficialstopossiblechargesunderR.A.No.3019,theAnti
GraftandCorruptPracticesAct.

Fifth, GSIS contends that respondent is not entitled to the retirement benefits under R.A.
No.8291because,whenheretiredin1992,thelawhadnotyetbeenenacted.Theretirementlaws
administeredbyGSISatthattimewereR.A.No.660,R.A.No.1616,andP.D.No.1146.

Lastly,GSISarguesthatthewritofmandamus issued by the CA is not proper because it

compelspetitionertoperformanactthatiscontrarytolaw.

Respondenttraversestheseallegations,andinsiststhathehasaclearlegalrighttoreceive
[16]
retirementbenefitsundereitherR.A.No.660orP.D.No.1146.
Heclaimsthathehasmetall
the conditions for entitlement to the benefits under either of the two laws.

[17]
Respondent

contends that the return of his contributions does not bar him from pursuing his claims because
GSIScanrequirehimtorefundthepremiumcontributions,orevendeducttheamountreturnedto
[18]
him from the retirement benefits he will receive.
He also argues that resumption of his
monthly pension will not constitute unjust enrichment because he is entitled to the same as a
[19]
matterofrightfortherestofhisnaturallife.

Respondent accepts that, contrary to the pronouncement of the CA, he is not covered by
R.A. No. 8291. He, therefore, asks this Court to modify the CA Decision, such that instead of
Section13ofR.A.No.8291,itshouldbeSection12ofP.D.No.1146orSection11ofR.A.No.
660tobeusedasthebasisofhisrighttoreceive,andtheadjustmentof,hismonthlypension.

Furthermore,respondentarguesthatallowinghimtoretireunderanotherlawdoesnotconstitute
conversion as contemplated in the GSIS law. He avers that his application for retirement under
R.A.No.910wasdulyapprovedbyGSIS,endorsedbytheDOJ,andimplementedbytheDBM
foralmostadecade.Thus,heshouldnotbemadetosufferanyadverseconsequencesowingtothe
change in the interpretation of the provisions of R.A. No. 910. Moreover, he could not have
appliedforconversionofhischosenretirementmodetooneunderadifferentlawwithinoneyear
from approval of his retirement application, because of his firm belief that his retirement under
R.A. No. 910 was proper a belief amply supported by its approval by GSIS, the favorable
[20]
endorsementoftheDOJ,anditsimplementationbytheDBM.

endorsementoftheDOJ,anditsimplementationbytheDBM.

Thepetitioniswithoutmerit.

Initially,weresolvetheproceduralissue.

GSIS contends that respondents petition for mandamus filed before the CA was procedurally
improperbecauserespondentcouldnotshowaclearlegalrighttothereliefsought.

The Court disagrees with petitioner. The CA itself acknowledged that it would not indulge in
technicalities to resolve the case, but focus instead on the substantive issues rather than on
[21]
proceduralquestions.
Furthermore,courtshavethediscretiontorelaxtherulesofprocedurein
ordertoprotectsubstantiverightsandpreventmanifestinjusticetoaparty.

TheCourthasallowednumerousmeritoriouscasestoproceeddespiteinherentprocedural
defects and lapses. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of
justice. Strict and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend to
[22]
frustrateratherthantopromotesubstantialjusticemustalwaysbeavoided.

Besides, as will be discussed hereunder, contrary to petitioners posture, respondent has a

clearlegalrighttothereliefprayedfor.Thus,theCAactedcorrectlywhenitgaveduecourseto
respondentspetitionformandamus.

Thiscaseinvolvesaformergovernmentofficialwho,afterhonorablyservingofficefor44
years, was comfortably enjoying his retirement in the relative security of a regular monthly
pension,butfoundhimselfabruptlydeniedthebenefitandleftwithoutmeansofsustenance.This
isasituationthatobviouslycriesoutfortheproperapplicationofretirementlaws,whichareinthe
classofsociallegislation.

Theinflexibleruleinourjurisdictionisthatsociallegislationmustbeliberallyconstruedin
[23]
favorofthebeneficiaries.
Retirementlaws,inparticular,areliberallyconstruedinfavorofthe
[24]
retiree
because their objective is to provide for the retirees sustenance and, hopefully, even
comfort,whenhenolongerhasthecapabilitytoearnalivelihood.Theliberalapproachaimsto

comfort,whenhenolongerhasthecapabilitytoearnalivelihood.Theliberalapproachaimsto
achievethehumanitarianpurposesofthelawinorderthatefficiency,security,andwellbeingof
[25]
governmentemployeesmaybeenhanced.
Indeed,retirementlawsareliberallyconstruedand
administeredinfavorofthepersonsintendedtobebenefited,andalldoubtsareresolvedinfavor
[26]
oftheretireetoachievetheirhumanitarianpurpose.

Inthiscase,asadvertedtoabove,respondentwasabletoestablishthathehasaclearlegalrightto
thereinstatementofhisretirementbenefits.

Instoppingthepaymentofrespondentsmonthlypension,GSISreliedonthememorandum
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
respondenthadbeenmistakenlyallowedtoreceiveretirementbenefitsunderR.A.No.910,GSIS
erroneouslyconcludedthatrespondentwasnotentitledtoanyretirementbenefitsatall,noteven
underanyotherextantretirementlaw.Thisisflawedlogic.

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
retirementlaw.

TheCA,however,incorrectlyheldthatrespondentwascoveredbyR.A.No.8291.R.A.No.
8291becamealawafterrespondentretiredfromgovernmentservice.Hence,petitionerandeven
respondentagreethatitdoesnotapplytorespondent,becausethelawtookeffectafterrespondents
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:
CommonwealthActNo.186,asamendedbyR.A.No.660,orP.D.No.1146.

In his Comment, respondent implicitly indicated his preference to retire under P.D. No.
1146,sincethislawprovidesforhigherbenefits,andbecausethesamewasthelatestlawatthe
[27]
timeofhisretirementin1992.

UnderP.D.No.1146,tobeeligibleforretirementbenefits,onemustsatisfythefollowing

requisites:

Section11.ConditionsforOldAgePension.

(a)Oldagepensionshallbepaidtoamemberwho:

(1)hasatleastfifteenyearsofservice
(2)isatleastsixtyyearsofageand
(3)isseparatedfromtheservice.

Respondenthadcompliedwiththeserequirementsatthetimeofhisretirement.GSISdoes
notdisputethis.Accordingly,respondentisentitledtoreceivethebenefitsprovidedunderSection
12ofthesamelaw,towit:

Section12.OldAgePension.

(a) A member entitled to oldage pension shall receive the basic monthly
pensionforlifebutinnocaseforaperiodlessthanfiveyears:Provided,That,the
membershallhavetheoptiontoconvertthebasicmonthlypensionsforthefirstfive
years into a lump sum as defined in this Act: Provided, further, That, in case the
pensionerdiesbeforetheexpirationofthefiveyearperiod,hisprimarybeneficiaries
shallbeentitledtothebalanceoftheamountstillduetohim.Indefaultofprimary
beneficiaries,theamountshallbepaidtohislegalheirs.

Tograntrespondentthesebenefitsdoesnotequatetodoubleretirement,asGSISmistakenly
claims.SincerespondenthasbeendeclaredineligibletoretireunderR.A.No.910,GSISshould
simplyapplytheproperretirementlawtorespondentsclaim,insubstitutionofR.A.No.910.In
thisway,GSISwouldbefaithfultoitsmandatetoadministerretirementlawsinthespiritinwhich
theyhavebeenenacted,i.e.,toprovideretireesthewherewithaltolivealifeofrelativecomfort
andsecurityafteryearsofservicetothegovernment.RespondentwillnotreceiveandGSISis
undernoobligationtogivehimmorethanwhatisduehimundertheproperretirementlaw.

ItmustbeemphasizedthatP.D.No.1146specificallymandatesthataretireeisentitledto
monthlypensionforlife.AsthisCourtpreviouslyheld:

Considering the mandatory salary deductions from the government employee, the
governmentpensionsdonotconstitutemeregratuitybutformpartofcompensation.

In a pension plan where employee participation is mandatory, the prevailing view is that
employeeshavecontractualorvestedrightsinthepensionwherethepensionispartofthetermsof
employment. The reason for providing retirement benefits is to compensate service to the
government.Retirementbenefitstogovernmentemployeesarepartofemolumenttoencourageand
retainqualifiedemployeesinthegovernmentservice.Retirementbenefitstogovernmentemployees
rewardthemforgivingthebestyearsoftheirlivesintheserviceoftheircountry.

rewardthemforgivingthebestyearsoftheirlivesintheserviceoftheircountry.

Thus,wheretheemployeeretiresandmeetstheeligibilityrequirements,heacquiresavested
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 preexisting law. Thus, a
pensioneracquiresavestedrighttobenefitsthathavebecomedueasprovidedunderthetermsof
thepublicemployeespensionstatute.Nolawcandeprivesuchpersonofhispensionrightswithout
[28]
dueprocessoflaw,thatis,withoutnoticeandopportunitytobeheard.

It must also be underscored that GSIS itself allowed respondent to retire under R.A. No.
910,followingjurisprudencelaiddownbythisCourt.
One could hardly fault respondent, though a seasoned lawyer, for relying on petitioners
interpretationofthepertinentretirementlaws,consideringthatthelatteristaskedtoadministerthe
governmentsretirementsystem.HehadtherighttoassumethatGSISpersonnelknewwhatthey
weredoing.

Since the change in circumstances was through no fault of respondent, he cannot be

prejudiced by the same. His right to receive monthly pension from the government cannot be
jeopardizedbyanewinterpretationofthelaw.

GSISargumentthatrespondenthasalreadybeenenormouslybenefitedunderR.A.No.910
missesthepoint.

Retirement benefits are a form of reward for an employees loyalty and service to the
employer,andareintendedtohelptheemployeeenjoytheremainingyearsofhislife,lessening
the burden of having to worry about his financial support or upkeep. A pension partakes of the
natureofretainedwagesoftheretireeforadualpurpose:toenticecompetentpeopletoenterthe
governmentserviceandtopermitthemtoretirefromtheservicewithrelativesecurity,notonly
for those who have retained their vigor, but more so for those who have been incapacitated by
[29]
illnessoraccident.

Surely,givingrespondentwhatisduehimunderthelawisnotunjustenrichment.

As to GSIS contention that what respondent seeks is conversion of his retirement mode,
whichisprohibitedunderR.A.No.8291,theCourtagreeswiththeCAthatthisisnotacaseof
conversion within the contemplation of the law. The conversion under the law is one that is
voluntary, a choice to be made by the retiree. Here, respondent had no choice but to look for
another law under which to claim his pension benefits because the DBM had decided not to

releasethefundsneededtocontinuepaymentofhismonthlypension.

Respondent himself admitted that, if the DBM had not suspended the payment of his
pension, he would not have sought any other law under which to receive his benefits. The
necessitytoconvertwasnotavoluntarychoiceofrespondentbutacircumstanceforceduponhim
bythegovernmentitself.

Finally, GSIS would like this Court to believe that because it has returned respondents
premiumcontributions,itisnowlegallyimpossibleforittocomplywiththeCAsdirective.
GiventhefactthatrespondentisineligibletoretireunderR.A.No.910,therefundbyGSIS
of respondents premium payments was erroneous. Hence, GSIS can demand the return of the
erroneous payment or it may opt to deduct the amount earlier received by respondent from the
benefits which he will receive in the future. Considering its expertise on the matter, GSIS can
device a scheme that will facilitate either the reimbursement or the deduction in the most cost
efficientandbeneficialmanner.

Theforegoingdisquisitiondrawsevengreaterforcefromsubsequentdevelopments.While
[30]
thiscasewaspending,theCongressenactedRepublicActNo.10071,
theProsecutionService
[31]
Act of 2010. On April 8, 2010, it lapsed into law without the signature of the President,
[32]
pursuanttoArticleVI,Section27(1)oftheConstitution.

Section24ofR.A.No.10071provides:

Section24. Retroactivity. The benefits mentioned in Sections 14 and 16 hereof shall be

grantedtoallthosewhoretiredpriortotheeffectivityofthisAct.

Byvirtueofthisexpressprovision,respondentiscoveredbyR.A.No.10071.Inaddition,
he is now entitled to avail of the benefits provided by Section 23, that all pension benefits of
retiredprosecutorsoftheNationalProsecutionServiceshallbeautomaticallyincreasedwhenever
thereisanincreaseinthesalaryandallowanceofthesamepositionfromwhichheretired.

Respondent, as former Chief State Prosecutor, albeit the position has been renamed
[33]
ProsecutorGeneral,
shouldenjoythesameretirementbenefitsasthePresidingJusticeofthe
CA,pursuanttoSection14ofR.A.No.10071,towit:

CA,pursuanttoSection14ofR.A.No.10071,towit:

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
inhibitionsanddisqualifications,andshallenjoythesameretirementandotherbenefitsasthoseof
[34]
thePresidingJusticeoftheCourtofAppealsandshallbeappointedbythePresident.

Furthermore,respondentshouldalsobenefitfromtheapplicationofSection16ofthelaw,
whichstates:

Section 16. Qualifications, Ranks, and Appointments of Prosecutors, and other Prosecution
Officers.xxx.

AnyincreaseaftertheapprovalofthisActinthesalaries,allowancesorretirementbenefitsorany
upgradingofthegradesorlevelsthereofofanyoralloftheJusticesorJudgesreferredtohereinto
whomsaidemolumentsareassimilatedshallapplytothecorrespondingprosecutors.

Lastly,andmostimportantly,byexplicitfiatofR.A.No.10071,membersoftheNational
ProsecutionServicehavebeengrantedtheretirementbenefitsunderR.A.No.910,towit:

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
likewisebegiventotheprosecutorscoveredbythisAct.

Hence,fromthetimeoftheeffectivityofR.A.No.10071,respondentshouldbeentitledtoreceive
retirementbenefitsgrantedunderR.A.No.910.

Consequently,GSISshouldcomputerespondentsretirementbenefitsfromthetimethesame
werewithhelduntilApril7,2010inaccordancewithP.D.No.1146andhisretirementbenefits
fromApril8,2010onwardsinaccordancewithR.A.No.910.

A final note. The Court is dismayed at the cavalier manner in which GSIS handled
respondentsclaims,keepingrespondentinthedarkastotherealstatusofhisretirementbenefits
for so long. That the agency tasked with administering the benefits of retired government
employees could so unreasonably treat one of its beneficiaries, one who faithfully served our
people for over 40 years, is appalling. It is well to remind GSIS of its mandate to promote the
efficiencyandwelfareoftheemployeesofourgovernment,andtoperformitstasksnotonlywith
competenceandproficiencybutwithgenuinecompassionandconcern.

competenceandproficiencybutwithgenuinecompassionandconcern.

WHEREFORE,theforegoingpremisesconsidered,theDecisiondatedOctober28,2008andthe
Resolution dated February 18, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 101811 are
herebyAFFIRMEDWITHMODIFICATION.GovernmentServiceInsuranceSystemis
ORDEREDto(1)payrespondentsretirementbenefitsinaccordancewithP.D.No.1146,subject
todeductions,ifany,computedfromthetimethesamewerewithhelduntilApril7,2010and(2)
pay respondents retirement benefits in accordance with R.A. No. 910, computed fromApril 8,
2010onwards.

Inorderthatrespondentmaynotbefurtherdeprivedofhismonthlypensionbenefits,thisDecision
isIMMEDIATELYEXECUTORY.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,SecondDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

AdditionalmemberinlieuofAssociateJusticeJoseCatralMendozaperRaffledatedJanuary11,2010.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza (now a member of this Court) and
SesinandoE.Villon,concurringrollo,pp.2938.
[2]
Id.at4047.
[3]
Id.at30.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id.at3132.
[6]
Id.at32.
[7]
Id.at3738.
[8]
Id.at35.
[9]
Id.at37.
[10]
Id.at15.
[11]
Id.
[12]
Id.at12.

[13]
Id.at17.
[14]
Id.at19.
[15]
Id.at21.
[16]
Id.at78.
[17]
Id.
[18]
Id.at8182.
[19]
Id.at84.
[20]
Id.at8586.
[21]
Id.at33.
[22]
Vallejov.CourtofAppeals,471Phil.670,684(2004).(Citationsomitted.)
[23]
SeeBuenaObrav.SocialSecuritySystem,449Phil.200(2003).
[24]
Profetav.Drilon,G.R.No.104139,December22,1992,216SCRA777.
[25]
DepartmentofBudgetandManagementv.ManilasFinestRetireesAssociation,Inc.,G.R.No.169466,May9,2007,523SCRA90,
104,citingRequestofClerkofCourtTessieL.Gatmaitan,372Phil.1,78(1999).
[26]
Re:MonthlyPensionofJudgesandJustices,A.M.No.909019SC,October4,1990,190SCRA315,320.
[27]
Rollo,p.79.

[28]
GSIS,CebuCityBranchv.Montesclaros,478Phil.573,583584(2004).(Citationsomitted.)
[29]
Contev.Palma,332Phil.20,3435(1996).(Citationsomitted.)
[30]
AnActStrengtheningandRationalizingtheNationalProsecutionService.
[31]
<www.senate.gov.ph/announcement.pdf>(visitedonOctober19,2010).
[32]
Section27.(1)EverybillpassedbytheCongressshall,beforeitbecomesalaw,bepresentedtothePresident.Ifheapprovesthe
sameheshallsignitotherwise,heshallvetoitandreturnthesamewithhisobjectionstotheHousewhereitoriginated,whichshallenter
the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, twothirds of all the Members of such
House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered,andifapprovedbytwothirdsofalltheMembersofthatHouse,itshallbecomealaw.Inallsuchcases,thevotesofeach
House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The
President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof,
otherwise,itshallbecomealawasifhehadsignedit.(Emphasissupplied.)
[33]
R.A.No.10071,Sec.17.
[34]
Emphasissupplied.