Lomigo v. Government Service Insurance System

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 222932. December 2, 2021.]

MR. EDILBERTO F. LOMIGO, FOR HIMSELF AND THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, petitioners,vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 222932 (Mr. Edilberto F. Lomigo, for himself and the retired employees of the National Irrigation Administration v. Government Service Insurance System). — Edilberto Lomigo (Edilberto) was an employee of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Aganan-Sta. Barbara, Iloilo. 1 Later, Edilberto was separated from government service pursuant to the rationalization program under Executive Order (EO) No. 366. 2 On January 30, 2012, Edilberto filed his Application for Retirement and Other Social Insurance Benefit3 under Republic Act (RA) No. 8291 4 with Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Iloilo Branch, effective December 31, 2011, at the age of 59. 5 Thereafter, Edilberto received the corresponding cash payment. Also, the GSIS declared that Edilberto is entitled to the basic monthly pension of P29,571.41, for life upon reaching the age of 60. 6 In computing the basic monthly pension, the GSIS used the formula in Section 9 of RA No. 8291 which is 37.5% of the revalued average monthly compensation plus 2.5% of said revalued average monthly compensation for each year of service in excess of fifteen (15) years.

However, Edilberto requested for the adjustment of his cash payment and basic monthly pension using his actual monthly salary as the basis for their computation as purportedly set forth in EO No. 77. 7 Yet, the GSIS denied the request for the adjustment of his pension. 8 Hence, Edilberto filed this petition for mandamus and Certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the GSIS. Edilberto contends that the GSIS is mandated to grant the increase pursuant to EO No. 77. On the other hand, the GSIS argues that Edilberto has no clear and legal right to any adjustment of his separation benefits. 9

The petition is unmeritorious.

Prefatorily, Edilberto was among the NIA employees affected by the rationalization program under EO No. 366. Under Section 8 of EO No. 366, the personnel who may be affected by the rationalization shall have the option to remain in government service or to avail of the retirement/separation benefits. Section 10 of EO No. 366 reads:

SECTION 10. Personnel Who Would Opt to Retire or be Separated from the Service. — Affected personnel, with appointments attested by the CSC, whether hired on a permanent or temporary basis, who would opt to retire or be separated from the service, and those hired on a casual or contractual basis, if qualified, shall be given the option to avail themselves of any of the following, whichever is beneficial to them:

10.1 Retirement gratuity provided under RA 1616 (An Act Further Amending Section Twelve of Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred Eighty-Six, as Amended, Prescribing Two Other Modes of Retirement and for Other Purposes), as amended, payable by the last employer of the Affected personnel, plus the refund of retirement premiums payable by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), without the incentive herein provided.

10.2 Retirement benefit under RA 660 (An Act to Amend Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred and Eighty-Six entitled "An Act to Create and Establish a Government Service Insurance System, to Provide for its Administration, and to Appropriate the Necessary Funds Therefor," and to Provide Retirement Insurance and for Other Purposes) or applicable retirement, separation or unemployment benefit provided under RA 8291 (An Act Amending Presidential Decree No. 1146, as Amended, Expanding and Increasing the Coverage and Benefits of the Government Service Insurance System, Instituting Reforms Therein and for other Purposes), if qualified, plus the following applicable incentives:

10.2.1 1/2 month of the present basic salary for every year of government service and a fraction thereof, for those who have rendered 20 years of service and below;

10.2.2 3/4 month of the present basic salary for every year of government service and a fraction thereof, computed starting from the 1st year, for those who have rendered 21-30 years of service; and

10.2.3 1 month of the present basic salary for every year of government service and fraction thereof, computed starting from the 1st year, for those who have rendered 31 years of service and above.

PROVIDED: That the GSIS shall pay, on the day of separation, the retirement/separation/unemployment benefits to which an affected employee may be entitled to under RA 660 or RA 8291 and whenever there is an option, the one which the affected employee has chosen as the most beneficial to him/her.

PROVIDED FURTHER: That for the purpose of complying with the required number of years of service under RA 8291, the portability scheme under RA 7699 (An Act Instituting Limited Portability Scheme in the Social Security Insurance Systems by Totalizing the Workers' Creditable Services or Contributions in Each of the Systems) may be applied, subject to existing policies and guidelines.

10.3 Those with that three (3) years of government service may opt to avail of the separation gratuity under RA 6656 (An Act to Protect the Security of Tenure of Civil Service Officers and Employees in the Implementation of Government Reorganization), plus the appropriate incentive provided under Section 10.2.

No affected employees who opted for retirement/separation shall receive less than an aggregate of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as his retirement/separation gratuity benefits from both the National Government and the GSIS.

In case of employees belonging to agencies and GOCCs exempted from or not following the Salary Standardization Law, the total amount of incentives to be received shall not exceed One Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00). (Emphases supplied.)

In essence, the retirement, separation, or unemployment benefits available to affected personnel who choose to retire or be separated from the service are: (1) Retirement gratuity provided under RA No. 1616 plus the refund of retirement premiums, without incentive (Section 10.1); or (2) Retirement benefit provided under RA No. 660 plus the applicable incentive (Section 10.2); or (3) Applicable retirement, separation or unemployment benefit provided under RA No. 8291 plus the applicable incentive (Section 10.2); or (4) Separation gratuity under RA No. 6656, unemployment benefit under RA No. 8291, plus the appropriate incentive (Section 10.3).

In this case, however, Edilberto filed his Application for Retirement and Other Social Insurance Benefit under RA No. 8291. Under Section 11 (b) 10 of RA No. 8291, the separation benefits to which Edilberto is entitled shall consist of: (1) a cash payment (equivalent to eighteen [18] times his basic monthly pension payable at the time of resignation or separation); and (2) an old-age pension benefit (equal to the basic monthly pension payable monthly for life upon reaching the age of 60). The basic monthly pension is equal to 37.5% of the revalued average monthly compensation, plus 2.5% of said revalued average monthly compensation for each year of service in excess of fifteen (15) years. 11

The Court cannot sustain Edilberto's argument that his basic monthly pension should be computed based on his actual monthly salary under EO No. 77. The basic monthly pension which forms part of the separation benefits under RA No. 8291 uses a different basis for computation from that of the incentive benefits contemplated in Section 10.2 of EO No. 366. Under Section 9 of RA No. 8291, 12 the basic monthly pension is equivalent to 37.5% of the revalued average monthly compensation. On the other hand, incentive benefits under EO No. 366 are computed on the basis of the actual monthly salary of affected personnel as provided in EO No. 77. The difference on the basis of computation is discernible from Section 1 of EO No. 77 itself, viz.:

The incentives that shall be received by personnel who will be affected by the [rationalization program] under EO No. 366 and opt to avail of the retirement benefit under RA No. 660 or the applicable retirement/separation/unemployment benefit provided under RA No. 8291 shall be computed using their actual monthly salary as of 31 December 2011. (Emphases added.)

In other words, the "actual monthly salary" formula under EO No. 77 only applies to the incentive benefits that shall be received by personnel affected by EO No. 366's rationalization program. EO No. 77 does not state that the actual salary formula is also applicable to any other kind of benefits under other laws. Even the last paragraph of Section 1 of EO No. 77 categorically states that "the terminal leave benefits and retirement/separation/unemployment benefits of the affected employees, which are being released by the Department of Budget and Management and the [GSIS], respectively, shall be based on the existing rules and regulations on the matter." Thus, Edilberto erroneously claims that his separation benefits, i.e., basic monthly pension, must be computed based on "actual monthly salary" formula. A reading of the entirety of EO No. 77 would show that since Edilberto filed his application for separation benefits under RA No. 8291, it is the "revalued average monthly compensation" formula that must apply in the computation of his separation benefits or basic monthly pension pursuant to Section 1 of EO No. 77.

It is settled that when the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no occasion for interpretation but only application. 13 The courts may only construe the true intent of the law when it is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning. 14 "Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non-Indiget, when the language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required." 15 In this case, EO No. 77 declares with sufficient clarity and precision that incentives benefits shall be based on the actual monthly salary of personnel affected by EO No. 366. These incentive benefits are given in addition to the retirement, separation, or unemployment benefits which are granted and released in accordance with the pertinent provisions of RA No. 660 or RA No. 8291, as the case may be. On account of the differences between incentive benefits and other benefits governed by other laws, EO No. 77 textually states that the actual monthly salary formula is to be used only for incentive benefits under EO No. 366, and not to other separation benefits, e.g., basic monthly pension under RA 8291, which uses a different formula. There being no ambiguity, the Court only needs to apply the wordings of the law, as opposed to Edilberto's plea of interpretation.

On this premise, Edilberto's petition for mandamus must fail. The Court has consistently held that mandamus lies only when the petitioner's legal right to the performance of a particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. A clear legal right connotes a right which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law. 16 There must be an imperative duty on the part of the respondent in a petition for mandamus to perform that which is demanded of him. 17 Here, Edilberto failed to show that he has a well-defined and certain legal right to the relief demanded, making it imperative upon GSIS to perform the act required of it. As discussed, the precise language of EO No. 77 militates against Edilberto's claim that his basic monthly pension should be computed using his actual monthly salary as of December 31, 2011. Thus, the Court sees no legal basis to grant Edilberto's request for the re-computation and adjustment of his retirement/separation benefits.

Likewise, Edilberto did not demonstrate grave abuse of discretion that would satisfactorily support his petition for Certiorari. All that Edilberto alleged in his petition is that the "GSIS acts beyond its jurisdiction or with abuse of its discretion amounting to lack or excess of its jurisdiction and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law considering that GSIS has already denied the query or claim of the NIA retirees as to the increase of their GSIS pension, hence, an original certiorari petition may be resorted to."18 This is a mere conclusion of law. Edilberto failed to substantiate how GSIS acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic manner equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 19 There was no abuse of discretion that is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. 20

Finally, the petition for mandamus and Certiorari require that there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court cannot concede to Edilberto's argument that there is no need to exhaust the claim with the GSIS as it has already denied the request for adjustment of pension. 21 However, the records show that the denial was merely made by the Manager of GSIS Bacolod Branch Office, whose decision does not necessarily reflect the determination of the GSIS Board of Trustees on the matter. To be sure, RA No. 8291 grants to GSIS original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising under this statute and any other laws administered by the GSIS. 22 In case of the adverse decision of the GSIS Board of Trustees, there is still an adequate remedy available to Edilberto, which is an appeal before the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 14.21 of IRR of RA No. 8291. Clearly, Edilberto's immediate recourse to mandamus and Certiorari before the Court is unwarranted.

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 31.

2. Entitled "DIRECTING A STRATEGIC REVIEW OF THE OPERATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND PROVIDING OPTIONS AND INCENTIVES FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE RATIONALIZATION OF THE FUNCTIONS AND AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH."

3.Rollo, p. 59.

4. Entitled "THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM ACT OF 1997."

5.Rollo, p. 34.

6.Id. at 35.

7.Id. at 36.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id. at 49-54.

10. SEC. 11. Separation Benefits. — The separation benefits shall consist of: (a) a cash payment equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of his average monthly compensation for each year of service he paid contributions, but not less than Twelve thousand pesos (P12,000) payable upon reaching sixty (60) years of age or upon separation, whichever comes later: Provided, That the member resigns or separates from the service after he has rendered at least three (3) years of service but less than fifteen (15) years; or

(b) A cash payment equivalent to eighteen (18) times his basic monthly pension payable at the time of resignation or separation, plus an old-age pension benefit equal to the basic monthly pension payable monthly for life upon reaching the age of sixty (60): Provided, That the member resigns or separates from the service after he has rendered at least fifteen (15) years of service and is below sixty (60) years of age at the time of resignation or separation.

11. SEC. 9. Computation of the Basic Monthly Pension. — (a) The basic monthly pension is equal to:

1) thirty-seven and one-half percent (37.5%) of the revalued average monthly compensation; plus

2) two and one-half percent (2.5%) of said revalued average monthly compensation for each year of service in excess of (15) years: Provided, That the basic monthly pension shall not exceed ninety percent (90%) of the average monthly compensation.

(b) The basic monthly pension may be adjusted upon the recommendation of the President and General Manager of the GSIS and approved by the President of the Philippines in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the GSIS: Provided, however, that the basic monthly pension shall not be less than One thousand and three hundred pesos (P1,300.00): Provided, further, that the basic monthly pension for those who have rendered at least twenty (20) years of service after the effectivity of this Act shall not be less than Two Thousand Four Hundred Pesos (P2,400.00) a month.

12.Id.

13.Barcellano v. Bañas, 673 Phil. 177, 187 (2011).

14.Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 826 Phil. 329, 344 (2018).

15.Barcellano v. Bañas, supra note 13.

16.Carolina v. Senga, 758 Phil. 305, 319 (2015).

17.Laygo v. Municipal Mayor of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, 803 Phil. 126, 141 (2017).

18.Rollo, p. 4.

19.Soneja v. Court of Appeals, 606 Phil. 443, 447 (2009).

20.Jinalinan Technical School, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 530 Phil. 77, 82 (2006).

21.Rollo, p. 11.

22. SEC. 30 of RA No. 8291.