ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11580   May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM<br /><br />103 Phil 651

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11580. May 9, 1958.]

    MARCELINO GABRIEL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondent-Appellee.

    Castor M. Baltazar for Appellant.

    Leovigildo Monasterial and Samson G. Binag for Appellee.


    SYLLABUS


    1. RETIREMENT INSURANCE; EMPLOYEE Who AVAILS OF BENEFIT SHOULD REFUND ANY GRATUITY ALREADY RECEIVED. — Any officer or employee whose position was abolished or who was separated from the service as a consequence of the reorganization provided for in Republic Act No. 422 may be retired under the provisions of Republic Act No. 660, if qualified, provided that any gratuity or retirement benefit already received by him shall be refunded to the Government Service Insurance System (section 26, Republic Act No. 660). Consequently, the gratuity equivalent to one year salary received by petitioner pursuant to Republic Act No. 422 should be deducted from his annuity under Republic Act No. 660.


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    The pertinent facts are correctly set forth in appellant’s brief, from which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The petitioner-appellant, former District Supervisor in the Bureau of Public schools with 33 years in the classified civil service, was laid off on February 1, 1951 by virtue of Executive No. 392 in pursuance of the Reorganization Act known as Republic Act No. 422, which abolished his position. Accordingly, he received P2,760.00 as gratuity equivalent to one year salary as district supervisor.

    "On July 9, 1952, petitioner-appellant filed with respondent- appellee an application for retirement insurance benefit under Republic Act No. 660, as amended, electing monthly joint life annuity without definite period but payable during lifetime with his wife, subject to reduction, upon the death of either spouse, to one-half of the amount in favor of the survivor. The application was approved, effective February 1, 1951; and by reason of the approval of his application, he has been receiving the monthly annuity of P62.15, payable at the end of each month. The respondent-appellee fixed the monthly annuity of only P62.15 after deducting in its computation the gratuity of P2,760.00 previously granted by operation of Executive Order No. 392 and in pursuance of Republic Act No. 422. Without deduction by way of refund, the monthly annuity would be P79.63 instead of the lesser amount; and such refund has been affected under Resolution No. 131, series of 1953 of the GSIS Board of Trustees (respondent-appellee). The appellee still continues making the deduction and the applicant, who has never been reinstated or re-employed in the government service, questions as unlawful such refund."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Contending that the gratuity under Republic Act No. 422 should not be deducted from his annuity under Republic Act No. 660, petitioner Marcelino Gabriel instituted this action for mandamus in order to discontinue said deduction by respondent Government Service Insurance System and to recover all amounts heretofore deducted from his annuity, with legal interest, and costs. The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment for Respondent. Hence, this appeal by petitioner.

    The only issue is whether the gratuity received by petitioner under Executive Order No. 392, pursuant to Republic Act No. 422, is deductible from his annuity under Republic Act No. 660.

    Respondent maintains the affirmative, and the lower court sustained this view, relying upon the second paragraph of section 26, Republic Act No. 660. Petitioner insist, however, that Executive Order No. 392 and Republic Act No. 422 intended to give, to those separated from the service under the provisions of both, a legal right to the gratuity therein granted, "without any condition of refund requirement, nor any string attached to it," in the words of petitioner; that there is no incompatibility between the gratuity under Republic Act No. 422 and the retirement insurance benefit under Republic Act No. 660; and that Congress intended to give both to those retired under Republic Act No. 422.

    The question for us to determine is not whether Republic Act No. 422 and Executive Order 392 impose any qualifications upon the gratuity therein provided. We are here concerned with intent of the lawmaker in the enactment of Republic Act No. 660. The second paragraph of section 26 thereof provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Notwithstanding any provisions of this Act to the contrary, any officer or employee whose position was abolished or who was separated from the service as a consequence of the reorganization provided for in Republic Act Numbered Four hundred and twenty-two may be retired under the provisions of this Act if qualified: Provided, That any gratuity or retirement benefit already received by him shall be refunded to the System. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is clear from this paragraph, not only that Congress did not propose to give to those separated from the service under Executive Order No. 392, in relation to Republic Act No. 422, the benefits of the retirement insurance benefits under Republic Act No. 660, in addition to the gratuity received under said Executive Order No. 392 and Republic Act No. 422, but, also, that our lawmakers intended this gratuity to be excluded by the enjoyment of said retirement insurance benefits.

    Again, said Republic Act No. 660 does not seek to deprive anybody of his vested rights. However, one separated from the service under Republic Act No. 422 is given in Republic Act No. 660 the option to avail of the benefits of the retirement insurance provided in the latter, subject to the condition that "any gratuity or retirement benefits already received by him should be refunded to the System." Petitioner necessarily accepted this condition when he applied for the benefits of Republic Act No. 660. In other words, it is he, by voluntarily choosing to be under Republic Act No. 660, who divested himself of his right to said gratuity.

    Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner-appellant. It is so ordered.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-11580   May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM<br /><br />103 Phil 651


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED