Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > January 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24859. January 31, 1968.]

PABLO R. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondent.

A.B. Tomas and J.C. Gaspar for Petitioner.

Samson G. Binag and Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; MANDAMUS; CLEAR OR INDUBITABLE CLAIM REQUIRED. — To entitle a petitioner to the coercive right of mandamus, a showing of complete and clear legal right in the petitioner to the performance of ministerial acts must be shown.

2. CIVIL SERVICE; PUBLIC OFFICERS; "CONSIDERED RESIGNED" MEANS DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. — Despite the weaseling expression "considered resigned," probably invented by some official superior unwilling to face realities, the separation of petitioner from the service against his will is nothing but a dismissal.

3. ID.; ID.; SEPARATION FOR CAUSE, MEANING OF. — The misrepresentation of petitioner’s educational attainments in his sworn application for civil service examination, where he claimed to be a high school graduate when he was not, is an act of dishonesty and is a ground for disciplinary action under sec. 19 [v] of the Civil Service Rules. This act combines both perjury and falsification of an official document which infirm a public officer’s integrity and reliability — qualities which are necessarily connected with the discharge of his duties and functions.

4. ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL FOR CAUSE DEPRIVES EMPLOYEE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS; OFFICIALS HEADING ENTITY CANNOT AFFECT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF SEPARATION. — The enjoyment of retirement benefits under the GSIS being conditioned upon the retiree’s satisfactory service, the consequences of dismissal, or involuntary separation from service for cause, are provided for and governed exclusively by laws applicable. The offices or entities where service was rendered are powerless to affect such consequences. A resolution allowing the petitioner to resign "without prejudice to retirement benefits the latter may be entitled," cannot preserve such benefits for the petitioner if under the law he has no right thereto.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Original petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the General Manager of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS for short) to approve the application of Pablo R. Aquino for retirement and to order payment of P1,500.00 attorneys’ fees plus costs.

The basic facts, so far as material, appear to be that while holding the position of Chief Accountant II of the Central Luzon Agricultural College (hereinafter termed CLAC for brevity’s sake), petitioner Aquino was charged by Bernardino Saplaco, Supply Officer of the same institution, with dishonesty through misrepresentation of his educational attainments. The Board of Trustees of the CLAC had Aquino investigated by a committee which reported as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Complainant also presented Exhibits "F" and "G" re respondent’s Information Sheets, which clearly showed that in answer to item 6, respondent placed 4th year as the highest grade attained at the Manila West High School and that for his college education said respondent wrote BTCS as the college share he obtained his BSC (Bachelor of Science in Commerce), Exhibit "G" which was an amendment of Exhibit "F", likewise showed that respondent consistently maintained that he was a graduate of the MWHS in 1926.

"In support of his charges of dishonesty through misrepresentation complainant presented Exhibit "H" respondents’ application for Examination for the first grade (C.S. Form I) dated September 29, 1950, filed under oath wherein respondent stated that he was a high school graduate. No evidence was presented on the alleged misrepresentation of the respondent for the 2nd grade examination.

"Respondent for his defense claimed that he never misrepresented himself to be a high school graduate nor a holder of a BSC degree. He explained that he put 4th year and BSC in his Information Sheet because that is the equivalent of his training and experience in the government service and it is even equal to his being a degree holder. Respondent, however, admitted during the investigation that he finished only the Third Year of high school. He enrolled in the 4th year but did not continue the same. That he put BSC as his educational attainment in Exhibit "F" and to his application for examination in the belief that he is a BSC holder not by actual graduation from school but merely because of experience in the government service. Respondent said that was the very reason why he filed a second Information Sheet (Exhibit "C").

Respondent’s explanation is not satisfactory, in the face of evidence and his virtual admission that he has not finished the high school nor graduated from the college with any degree and taking into account his consistent representation in various government records that he was a high school graduate and a holder of a Bachelor of Science in Commerce degree, this Committee finds him guilty of misrepresentation on three counts. The Committee, however, finds no evidence of misrepresentation at the time respondent took the Civil Service examination for the 2nd grade.

"In view of all the foregoing, the Committee respectfully recommends that respondent be considered resigned effective his last day of service with pay. Considering, however, the long service which the respondent has served in the government it is also recommended that his resignation be considered without prejudice to whatever retirement benefit he may be entitled . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Committee’s report was approved by the Board of Trustees, and accordingly, it resolved (Res. No. 1076, Aug. 26, 1962)

"that Mr. Aquino be considered resigned effective his last day of service with pay and that his resignation be considered without prejudice to whatever retirement benefits he may be entitled, subject to the availability of funds."cralaw virtua1aw library

Aquino then applied for retirement with gratuity under Commonwealth Act 188 and Republic Act No. 1616, with the GSIS, and his application was endorsed by the President of the Agricultural College, stating that "this Office has no objection to the retirement of Mr. Aquino under Republic Act No. 1616" (Petition, Annex D).

The General Manager of the GSIS, however, declared that since Aquino’s administrative penalty of being considered resigned was deemed an involuntary separation from the service, which has the same effect as separation for cause, Aquino was not eligible for retirement benefits, but was only entitled to refund of the retirement premiums paid by him (Petition, Annex E).

After vain efforts to secure a rewording of the CLAC resolution No. 1076, Aquino appealed to the President for relief, and approval of his retirement application. The Chief Executive referred the matter to the GSIS, for appropriate action, but the GSIS General Manager reiterated his original stand on the question. Hence, this application for mandamus.

The main contentions of the petitioner are that (a) he was not removed from the service for cause, because the filling of the information sheets had no connection with the performance of his official duties as Chief Accountant; (b) that the resolution of the CLAC Board of Trustees that petitioner be "considered resigned .. without prejudice to whatever retirement benefits he may be entitled subject to availability of funds" did not deprive him of his right to retirement benefits arising from his services; (c) that the GSIS is in estoppel to contest his right to retirement; and (d) that he had no other plain, adequate and speedy remedy.

On the first issue, no doubt can be entertained that petitioner was, to all intents and purposes, dismissed from the service. Despite the weaseling expression "considered resigned," probably invented by some official superior unwilling to face realities, the fact remains that Aquino was separated from the service against his will, and that can be nothing else but a dismissal.

Was the separation for cause? The brunt of petitioner’s argument is directed at the misrepresentation in the information sheet, which he claims to have no connection with the discharge of his duties as accountant. He entirely omits all references to the misrepresentation of his educational attainments contained in his sworn application for civil service examination (Exh. H). There he claimed to be a high school graduate, which the Committee and Board of Trustees of the CLAC expressly found not to be true. This is an act of dishonesty and is expressly made a ground for disciplinary action under the Civil Service Rules, coming under the description of "Intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion." (Sec. 19 [v], Civil Service Rules)

We need not emphasize that acts of the kind herein discussed, which combine both perjury and falsification of an official document, infirm a public officer’s integrity and reliability, qualities that are necessarily connected with the discharge of petitioner’s functions and duties.

Hence, even if the misrepresentation committed in the information sheets (Exhs. F and G) were to be disregarded, there is still reason to consider petitioner as dismissed from the service for cause. That the enjoyment of retirement benefits under the Government Service Insurance System are conditioned upon a retiree’s satisfactory service is not contested.

Anent the second issue, the consequences of dismissal or involuntary separation from service for cause are governed exclusively by the laws applicable. The offices or entities where service was rendered are powerless to affect such consequences, which are not dependent upon the discretion of the officials heading the particular office or entity. It follows that the resolution considering Aquino resigned, in so far as it provides that it shall be deemed "without prejudice to whatever retirement benefits he may be entitled" can not preserve for him such benefits if under the law he has no right thereto; the CLAC being powerless to condone malfeasance or misbehavior in office.

As to the alleged estoppel of the respondent, suffice it to observe that the return of premiums and voluntary deposits with interest to petitioner is specifically prescribed by Commonwealth Act 186 (d) as amended; hence, no estoppel can be predicated thereon.

Viewed in the light most favorable to him, the claim of petitioner is neither clear nor indubitable; hence, he is not entitled to the coercive right of mandamus that requires a showing of complete and clear legal right in the petitioner to the performance of ministerial acts. 1

WHEREFORE, the writ applied for is denied. No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rule 65, section 3; Zamora v. Wright, 53 Phil. 613; Palileo v. Ruiz Castro, 85 Phil. 272; Cochoco v. Ino, L-599, Mar. 20, 1954; Aprueba v. Ganzon, L-20867, Sept. 3, 1966.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-23542 January 2, 1968 - JUANA T. VDA. DE RACHO v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILAGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23988 January 7, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LEONARDO S. VILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24922 January 2, 1968 - MELECIO DOREGO, ET AL. v. ARISTON PEREZ

  • G.R. No. L-24108 January 3, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24190 January 8, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. RESTITUTO GALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968 - NAZARIO EQUIZABAL v. APOLONIO G. MALENIZA

  • G.R. No. L-22294 January 12, 1968 - DIONISIA PARAMI VDA. DE CABASAG v. AMADOR P. SU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22991 January 16, 1968 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23293 January 16, 1968 - LUIS R. AYO, JR. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24480 January 16, 1968 - LUCRECIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-22794 January 16, 1968 - RUFO QUEMUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22018 January 17, 1968 - APOLONIO GALOFA v. NEE BON SING

  • G.R. No. L-22081 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS M. CABANERO

  • G.R. No. L-22605 January 17, 1968 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23690 January 17, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-24230 January 17, 1968 - EUGENIA TORNILLA v. TEODORICA FUENTESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24434 January 17, 1968 - PEDRO REGANON, ET AL. v. RUFINO IMPERIAL

  • G.R. No. L-28459 January 17, 1968 - RAFAEL FALCOTELO, ET AL. v. MACARIO ASISTIO

  • G.R. No. L-22518 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ATENCIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23707 January 17, 1968 - JOSE A.V. CORPUS v. FEDERICO C. ALIKPALA

  • G.R. No. L-26103 January 17, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. L-19255 January 18, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24707 January 18, 1968 - JOSE S. CAPISTRANO v. JUAN BOGAR

  • G.R. No. L-24946 January 18, 1968 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24287 January 24, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-22985 January 24, 1968 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. GREGORIO CAGUIMBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18546 & L-18547 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO OPINIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19752 January 29, 1968 - LAND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AGUSTIN CARLOS

  • G.R. No. L-23555 January 29, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. VALERIO V. ROVIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22468 January 29, 1968 - PUAHAY LAO v. DIMTOY SUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24607 January 29, 1968 - TOMAS TRIA TIRONA v. CITY TREASURER OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-24795 January 29, 1968 - PEDRO JIMENEA v. ROMEO G. GUANZON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20449 January 29, 1968 - ESPERANZA FABIAN, ET AL. v. SILBINA FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28415 January 29, 1968 - ESTRELLO T. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23012 January 29, 1968 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23052 January 29, 1968 - CITY OF MANILA v. GENERO M. TEOTICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28518 January 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO G. PADERNA

  • G.R. No. L-18971 January 29, 1968 - IN RE: ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21718 January 29, 1968 - MILAGROS F. VDA. DE FORTEZA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28392 January 29, 1968 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27268 January 29, 1968 - JUANITA JUAN-MARCELO, ET AL. v. GO KIM PAH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22145 January 30, 1968 - A. M. RAYMUNDO & CO. v. BENITO SYMACO

  • G.R. No. L-22686 January 30, 1968 - BERNARDO JOCSON, ET AL. v. REDENCION GLORIOSO

  • G.R. No. L-24073 January 30, 1968 - PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS v. REGINA GALANG VDA. DE ESPELETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27583 January 30, 1968 - MARGARITO J. LOFRANCO v. JESUS JIMENEZ, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-19565 January 30, 1968 - ESTRELLA DE LA CRUZ v. SEVERINO DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-20316 January 30, 1968 - LEONCIA CABRERA DE CHUATOCO v. GREGORIO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968 - IN RE: ANDRES SINGSON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22973 January 30, 1968 - MAMBULAO LUMBER COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22215 January 30, 1968 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. PEDRO LABAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23702 January 30, 1968 - MARIA VILLAFLOR v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23965 January 30, 1968 - FLOREÑA TINAGAN v. JOSE PERLAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-21423 January 31, 1968 - GO KIONG OCHURA, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23424 January 31, 1968 - LOURDES ARCUINO, ET AL. v. RUFINA APARIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22968 January 31, 1968 - BENEDICTO BALUYOT, ET AL. v. EULOGIO E. VENEGAS

  • G.R. No. L-24859 January 31, 1968 - PABLO R. AQUINO v. GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-25083 January 31, 1968 - JUSTINO QUETULIO, ET AL. v. NENA Q. DE LA CUESTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20387 January 31, 1968 - JESUS P. MORFE v. AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23170 January 31, 1968 - ALBINA DE LOS SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23279 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRA CUARTO v. ESTELITA DE LUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23980 January 31, 1968 - JULIA SAN BUENAVENTURA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25472 January 31, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. ANGELA PURUGANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24528 January 31, 1968 - DOMINGO T. LAO v. JOSE MOYA

  • G.R. No. L-22061 January 31, 1968 - DALMACIO URTULA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27776 January 31, 1968 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

  • G.R. No. L-28476 January 31, 1968 - ALEJANDRO REYES v. ANATALIO REYES, ET AL.