SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196564. April 4, 2018.]
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), petitioner,vs. ALBERT M. VELASCO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018which reads as follows: DaIAcC
"G.R. No. 196564 — GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioner, v. ALBERT M. VELASCO, Respondent.
Before the Court is petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated August 7, 2017. The Court finds that said motion mostly reiterates the same arguments already discussed in petitioner's previous pleadings.
In addition, however, petitioner now contends that, granting without admitting respondent was illegally dropped from the rolls, the Court of Appeals erred in ordering respondent's reinstatement with payment of his back salaries for the period of his unlawful dropping from the rolls, instead of granting only five years worth of back salaries.
This newly presented issue deserves scant consideration.
First, it is settled that an issue raised for the first time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the lower court is barred by estoppel. 1 A reviewing court may not entertain belatedly raised issues as the same "would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process. This rule holds even more true when the points of law, theories, issues and arguments are belatedly raised for the first time in the motion for reconsideration of this Court's decision." 2
Second, the cases cited by petitioner are either no longer controlling or inapplicable to the present case. Republic v. Pacheo3 was based on old jurisprudence 4 and did not consider nor reverse the Court En Banc's ruling in Civil Service Commission v. Magnaye, Jr., 5 which awarded full back wages to an illegally dismissed government employee. A careful reading of City Government of Makati v. Odeña6 shows that even the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has taken the position therein that prevailing jurisprudence has lifted the five-year limitation on the back wages of illegally dismissed government employees and the ruling of the Court reversing the CSC's grant of full back wages was due to the fact that the CSC's action modified a previous final and executory decision of the Court granting only five years back wages, which modification can no longer be allowed. Significantly, the most recent jurisprudence on this matter emphasized and extensively discussed the lack of legal and equitable bases for a five-year limitation on the back salaries of government employees who have been unlawfully dismissed or dropped from the rolls. 7
Considering that the basic issues raised in the motion have already been passed upon and there is no substantial argument to warrant a modification of this Court's Decision, the Court resolves to DENY reconsideration with FINALITY.
NO FURTHER pleadings or motions shall be entertained herein. TAacHE
Let an ENTRY of judgment in this case be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." SERENO, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Buklod Nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E. M. Ramos and Sons, Inc., 661 Phil. 34, 92 (2011).
2.Delfino v. St. James Hospital, Inc. (Resolution), 563 Phil. 797, 803 (2007).
3. 680 Phil. 488 (2012).
4. These earlier cases stem from Cristobal v. Melchor, 168 Phil. 328 (1977), which applied by analogy the five-year limitation on back wages of illegally dismissed employees in the private sector on illegally dismissed government employees. The five-year limitation on the back wages of illegally dismissed private sector employees has long since been removed by statute and jurisprudence.
5. 633 Phil. 353 (2010).
6. 716 Phil. 284 (2013).
7.See Saunar v. Ermita, G.R. No. 186502, December 13, 2017 and Campol v. Balao-as, G.R. No. 197634, November 28, 2016.