CARMELITA LLEDO VS ATTY CESAR V LLEDO

(A.M. No. P-95-1167, February 9, 2010)

FACTS:

Atty. Cesar V. Lledo, a clerk of court of the RTC was dismissed from service due to Cesars wife, Carmelita
that had filed an administrative case against him charging the latter with immorality, abandonment, and
conduct unbecoming a public official.

Cesar L. Lledo, Jr., Cesars son, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice asking to reconsider the leave credit to
be claim as money for the medical expenses of his father wherein his father suffered from stroke and
acute renal failure that makes him bedridden and the mistress abandoned cesar since 2001. The court
granted the motion. He again asked for judicial clemency in connection with his fathers claim for refund
of the latters personal contributions to GSIS which the court directed a resolution to execute the claim

Jason C. Teng, Regional Manager of the GSIS explained that a request for a refund of retirement
premiums is disallowed because it is the policy of the GSIS that an employee/member who had been
dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits cannot recover the retirement
premiums he has paid unless the dismissal provides otherwise under Section 58 Uniform Rules in
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 186 and The GSIS
Board pointed out that the Courts Decision did not provide that Cesar is entitled to a refund of his
retirement premiums.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cesar Lledo can claim personal contribution paid to the GSIS

RULING:

Yes. The Court ruled that under Section 11(d) of Commonwealth Act No. 186 that provides a person that
was dismissed is entitled for the refund of the premium and voluntary deposit, if any an interest therein.
In this case, the GSIS contention forfeiture of the retirement benefit due to dismissal cannot prosper
because GSIS laws are in the nature of social legislation, to be liberally construed in favor of the
government employees and to allow forfeiture of these personal contributions in favor of the GSIS would
condone undue enrichment. Based on statutory construction, for the latter law to be deemed as having
repealed the earlier law, it is necessary to show that the statutes or statutory provisions deal with the
same subject matter and that the latter be inconsistent with the former. There must be a showing of
repugnance, clear and convincing in character. The language used in the later statute must be such as to
render it irreconcilable with what had been formerly enacted. An inconsistency that falls short of that
standard does not suffice. Therefore, Atty Lledo is entitled to return his contributions paid to the GSIS.