GSIS Law Flashcards
Purpose for the enactment of the GSIS law
To provide and administer the following social security benefits for government Employees:
Compulsory life insurance;
Optional life insurance;
Retirement benefits;
Disability benefits to work-related contingencies; and
Death benefits.
Nicolas filed and was approved an application for retirement benefits under PD No. 1146 or the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977. Milagros, as wife and designated beneficiary, filed with GSIS a claim for survivorship pension. GSIS denied the claim because under Section 18 of PD 1146, the surviving spouse has no right to survivorship pension “if the surviving spouse contracted the marriage with the pensioner within three years before the pensioner qualified for the pension.” According to GSIS, Nicolas wed Milagros on 10 July 1983, less than one year from his date of retirement on “17 February 1984.”
WON the proviso in Section 18 of PD 1146 is valid and constitutional.
Held: It is void for being violative of the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the law. The GSIS cannot deny the claim of Milagros for survivorship benefits based on this invalid proviso.
Denial of Due Process. The proviso is contrary to Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, which provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” The proviso (Sec. 18, PD 1146) is unduly oppressive in outrightly denying a dependent spouse’s claim for survivorship pension if the dependent spouse contracted marriage to the pensioner within the three-year prohibited period. There is outright confiscation of benefits due the surviving spouse without giving the surviving spouse an opportunity to be heard. The proviso undermines the purpose of PD 1146, which is to assure comprehensive and integrated social security and insurance benefits to government employees and their dependents in the event of sickness, disability, death, and retirement of the government employees. (Karla Deles)
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. FERNANDO P. DE LEON, Respondent. 2010
FACTS: Respondent Fernando P. de Leon retired as Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 1992, after 44 years of service to the government. He applied for retirement under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910, invoking R.A. No. 3783, as amended by R.A. No. 4140, which provides that chief state prosecutors hold the same rank as judges. Thereafter, and for more than nine years, respondent continuously received his retirement benefits, until 2001, when he failed to receive his monthly pension.
Respondent learned that GSIS cancelled the payment of his pension because the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) informed GSIS that respondent was not qualified to retire under R.A. No. 910; that the law was meant to apply only to justices and judges; and that having the same rank and qualification as a judge did not entitle respondent to the retirement benefits provided thereunder.
Respondent then filed a petition for mandamus before the CA, praying that petitioner be compelled to continue paying his monthly pension and to pay his unpaid monthly benefits from 2001. The CA granted the petition. Petitioner GSIS is now before this Court, assailing the Decision of the CA and the Resolution denying its motion for reconsideration. GSIS argues that the writ of mandamus issued by the CA is not proper because it compels petitioner to perform an act that is contrary to law.
ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in granting the petition for mandamus
HELD: This case involves a former government official who, after honorably serving office for 44 years, was comfortably enjoying his retirement in the relative security of a regular monthly pension, but found himself abruptly denied the benefit and left without means of sustenance. This is a situation that obviously cries out for the proper application of retirement laws, which are in the class of social legislation. Indeed, retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve their humanitarian purpose.
In this case, respondent was able to establish that he has a clear legal right to the reinstatement of his retirement benefits. In stopping the payment of respondents monthly pension, GSIS relied on the memorandum of the DBM, which, in turn, was based on the Chief Presidential Legal Counsels opinion that respondent, not being a judge, was not entitled to retire under R.A. No. 910. And because respondent had been mistakenly allowed to receive retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910, GSIS erroneously concluded that respondent was not entitled to any retirement benefits at all, not even under any other extant retirement law. This is flawed logic.
Respondents disqualification from receiving retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910 does not mean that he is disqualified from receiving any retirement benefit under any other existing retirement law.
Prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 8291, retiring government employees who were not entitled to the benefits under R.A. No. 910 had the option to retire under either of two laws: Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended by R.A. No. 660, or P.D. No. 1146. In his Comment, respondent implicitly indicated his preference to retire under P.D. No. 1146, since this law provides for higher benefits, and because the same was the latest law at the time of his retirement in 1992.
Under P.D. No. 1146, to be eligible for retirement benefits, one must satisfy the following requisites:
Section 11. Conditions for Old-Age Pension.
(a) Old-age pension shall be paid to a member who:
(1) has at least fifteen years of service;
(2) is at least sixty years of age; and
(3) is separated from the service.
Respondent had complied with these requirements at the time of his retirement. GSIS does not dispute this. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to receive the benefits provided under Section 12 of the same law. To grant respondent these benefits does not equate to double retirement, as GSIS mistakenly claims. Since respondent has been declared ineligible to retire under R.A. No. 910, GSIS should simply apply the proper retirement law to respondents claim, in substitution of R.A. No. 910.
It must also be underscored that GSIS itself allowed respondent to retire under R.A. No. 910, following jurisprudence laid down by this Court.
One could hardly fault respondent, though a seasoned lawyer, for relying on petitioners interpretation of the pertinent retirement laws, considering that the latter is tasked to administer the governments retirement system. He had the right to assume that GSIS personnel knew what they were doing. Since the change in circumstances was through no fault of respondent, he cannot be prejudiced by the same.
DENIED.
Apolinario Pauig was the Municipal Agriculturist of the Municipality of San Pablo, lsabela. He started in the government service on 1964 as Emergency Laborer on casual status. He became a temporary employee from 1972 to 1977. He became a permanent employee on July 19, 1977 and a GSIS member on August 1, 1977. He retired from service on 2004 upon reaching 65 years of age. According to GSIS he only contributed 27 years as creditable services since no premium payment was made during his first 14 years in service. According to the Premium-Based Policy of the GSIS only periods of service where premium payments were made and duly remitted to the System shall be included in the computation of retirement benefits. He filed a case before the RTC who ruled in his favor.
Issue: W/N GSIS should include Pauig’s first 14 years in government service for the calculation of the latter’s retirement benefits claim?
NO. Pauig cited the case of GSIS v. CSC, where the Court ruled that the basis for the provision of retirement benefits is service to the government. Pauig’s reliance on the said case is misplaced. In GSIS v. CSC, the Court allowed the claimants to avail of their retirement benefits although no deductions were made from their salaries during the disputed periods when they were paid on a per diem basis. However, unlike in the case at bar, deductions were actually made from claimant’s fixed salary before and after the short controversial period. She assumed in all good faith that she continued to be covered by the GSIS insurance benefits considering that, in fact and in practice, the deductions are virtually mandatorily made from all government employees on an essentially involuntary basis. More importantly, neither of the claimants in this case of GSIS v. CSC was a casual or temporary employee like Pauig, both of them being elective officials. In the present case, the main reason why there were no deductions during those 14 years was because Pauig was not yet a GSIS member at that time. There was thus no legal obligation to pay the premium as no basis for the remittance of the same existed. And since only periods of service where premium payments were actually made and duly remitted to the GSIS shall be included in the computation of retirement benefits, said disputed period of 14 years must be removed from Pauig’s creditable service.
What is an employer under the GSIS?
National Government
Its political subdivisions, branches, agencies, instrumentalities
GOCCs, and financial institutions with original charters
Constitutional Commissions and the Judiciary [Sec. 2 (c), R.A. 8291]
Who is an Employee under the GSIS?
Any person, receiving compensation while in the service of an Employer, whether by election or appointment, irrespective of status of appointment, including barangay and sanggunian officials
What is Compensation
he basic pay or salary received by an Ee, pursuant to his or her election or appointment, excluding per diems, bonuses, OT pay, honoraria, allowances, and any other emoluments received in addition to the basic pay which are not integrated into the basic pay under existing laws [Sec. 2(i), R.A. 8291]
Compulsory coverage of the GSIS
1.All Employees receiving compensation who have not reached the compulsory retirement age, irrespective of employment status.
XPNs:
Uniformed members of the:
i. AFP; and
ii. PNP
b. Contractual Ees who have no Er and Ee relationship with the agencies they serve.
- Members of the Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions for life insurance policy(Sec. 3, RA 8291)
Coverage of life insurance, retirement and other social security protection
GR: All members of the GSIS shall have life insurance, retirement, and all other social security protections such as disability, survivorship, separation, and unemployment benefits (Sec. 3, R.A. 8291).
Who are not covered Coverage of life insurance, retirement and other social security protection
XPNs: The members of the following shall have life insurance only:
The Judiciary; and
Constitutional Commissions
Compulsory coverage of life insurance
- An elective official who at the time of election to public office is below 65 years of age and will be 65 years or more at the end of his term of office, including the period/s of his reelection to public office thereafter without interruption.
- Appointive officials who, before reaching the mandatory age of 65, are appointed to government position by the President of the Republic of the Philippines and shall remain in government service at age beyond 65.
- Contractual employees including casuals and other employees with an employee-government agency relationship are also compulsorily covered, provided they are receiving fixed monthly compensation and rendering the required number of working hours for the month.
Classification of members for the purpose of benefit entitlement
- Active members
Still in the service and are paying integrated premiums; Covered for the entire package benefits and privileges being extended by GSIS - Policy holders
Covered for life insurance only
Can avail of policy loan privilege only
May also apply for housing loans
Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions - Retired Members
Former active members who have retired from the service and are already enjoying the corresponding retirement benefits applied for;
Not entitled to any loan privilege, except stock purchase loan (Sec. 2.2, Rule II, IRR, R.A. 8291).
Persons excluded from the coverage of the GSIS law
Employees who have separate retirement schemes (members of the Judiciary, Constitutional Commissions and others who are similarly situated)
Contractual Ees who have no Er-Ee with the agencies they serve
Uniformed members of the AFP, BJMP, whose coverage by the GSIS have ceased, effective June 24, 1997
Uniformed members of the PNP whose coverage by the GSIS has ceased, effective February 1, 1996 (Sec. 2.4, Rule II, R.A. 8291, IRR)
GSIS DEPENDENTS AND BENEFICIARIES
Primary beneficiaries
Legal dependent spouse until he/she remarries
Dependent children (Sec. 2[g], R.A. 8291)
- Secondary beneficiaries
Dependent parents
Legitimate descendants, subject to restrictions on dependent children[RA 8291, Sec. 2(h)]
Who are GSIS dependents?
Dependents shall be the following:
- the legitimate spouse dependent for support upon the member or pensioner;
- the legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted child, including the illegitimate child, who is unmarried, not gainfully employed, not over the age of majority, or is over the age of majority but incapacitated and incapable of self-support due to a mental or physical defect acquired prior to age of majority; and
- the parents dependent upon the member for support
