Upload
phamxuyen
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
.. . , .. ~
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM
FINANCIAL CENT ER, ROXAS BOULEVARD, PASAY CITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
IN THE MATTER OF: CLAIM FOR REFUND OF PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY BENEFITS (OSTEOARTHRITIS) DEDUCTED FROM COLA, AMELIORATION ALLOWANCE AND JUDGMENT DEBT
GLORIA C. LEYVA, MERCEDES T. RANESES, LEONARDA PEREZ, AMELIA VERGARA, RODRIGO R. GREGORIO, REMEDIOS PEREZ, MARIA B. PINEDA, RENATO NISCE and THE GERSIP ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Petitioners.
LETICIA DE MESA, NILDA LINAO, FELIX LOPEZ, CARLITO ROXAS, MARIANO SANTOS, RODRIGO GREGORIO and THE GERSIP ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Petitioners.
GSIS Case No. 004-04
GSIS Case No. 014-04
"---------------------------------------------------------------------------"
RESOLUTION
For resolution of the Board is the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by the Petitioners on October 08, 2012 on the Decision
promulgated on August 23 , 201 2, DISMISSING these cons olidated
Pe titions for lack of merit.
In fine, the Petitioners interposed the following arguments in
their Motion for Reconsideration:
1. The recovery of the PPD benefit due to Osteoarthritis
was made without valid justification having been based
on Board Resolution No. 345 dated November 21, 2001
and a new policy which were issued only after the grant
of said benefits;
2. Board Resolution No. 345 dated November 21, 2001 has
no force and effect because the same was not published
in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation;
3. The GSIS Board of Trustees being a court of law cannot
consider against the Petitioners the COA disallowances
and COA Audit Observation Memorandum, which were
not presented by the parties; and
4. The action based on solution indebiti has already
prescribed.
The Petitioners of these consolidated cases were employees of
the GSIS who were paid Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) Benefits
due to osteoarthritis. Subsequently, however, these benefits were
recovered from the Petitioners for having been given without legal
basis and in contravention to R.A. No. 8291 and its 1997
Implementing Rules and Regulations. The refund was effected
through deductions from the back pay differentials for Amelioration
Allowance and the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) (GSIS Case No.
004-04) and from the refundable 25% Provident Fund Management
2
share (GSIS Case No. 014-04). These refunds led to the filing of these
Petitions.
The consolidated Petitions were dismissed, finding that the
deductions made to the Petitioner's COLA and amelioration
allowances and management share in the provident fund were proper
for the following reasons:
1. The payment of PPD benefits to Petitioners due to
osteoarthritis was made without legal basis, having been
done without any proof of loss or reduction in earning
capacity as required by Section 9.1.1, Rule IX of the 1997
IRR of R.A. No. 8291;
2. The amounts corresponding to the PPD benefits
which Petitioners erroneously received and to which they
are not entitled became obligations on their part to the
GSIS. Petitioners are legally and duty bound to return to
the GSIS the said amounts under the principle of solutio
indebiti.
3. The deductions were made on the strength of the
principle of off-setting and Petitioners' own signed
authorizations to effect such deductions.
The Comment (on the Motion for Reconsideration), states,
among others, that "(t)here being no new matters adduced in the
motion for reconsideration that are sufficiently persuasive to induce
a modification of the questioned Resolution dated August 23, 2012 ,
3
the Honorable Board's denial thereof must therefore ensue as a
matter of course."1
On January 31, 2013, Petitioners filed a Reply (to the Comment
on the Motion for Reconsideration) reiterating their arguments against
the assailed Decision.
It bears noting that Petitioners in their first and second
arguments posit essentially the same arguments as those already
considered and passed upon by the Board in the assailed Decision.
Thus, these need not again be discussed to avoid useless formality
and redundancy. 2
Additionally, Petitioners likewise assail the reference made to
the COA disallowance and the COA Audit Observation Memorandum
and further aver that the GSIS is already barred from recovering the
amounts erroneously paid due to prescription.
As can be gleaned from their arguments, Petitioners fail to
appreciate that the invalidity of the grant of the PPD benefits due to
Osteoarthritis previously given to them is not based on any COA
action or even any Board Resolution but rather on the law itself and
its implementing rules and regulations.
1 Citing PCI Bank vs. Escolin, 67 SCRA 202 (1975).
2 Onigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Judge Velasco and Molina, G.R. No. 109645, March 4,
1996 and Molina vs. Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Quezon City, Br. 105 and Manila Banking Corp., G.R. No. 112564
4
... ·
Even a brief perusal of the questioned Decision reveals that the
basis for the declaration of the erroneous grant is R.A. No. 8291 itself
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations and not the COA
Disallowance and the Audit Observation Memorandum. These COA
actions merely serve as further background and corroboration for
the illegality and impropriety of the grant of PPD benefits, which is
the subject of this Petition.
Moreover, to address Petitioner's third issue, the subject COA
actions are part of the official records of the GSIS, of which the Board
may take judicial notice. The Board, furthermore, in the exercise of
its adjudicatory powers, is not precluded to verify Petitioners' own
assertions by checking GSIS official records.
Notably, R.A. No. 8291 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations, give the Board of Trustees of the GSIS the exclusive
power to adjudicate and resolve any dispute arising out of any claim
or question from laws the GSIS administers. This power is governed
by the general principle that the Board " ... shall act on the merits of
the case with the end in view of promoting justice and equity, and
shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence."3 The same
principle has been retained under the 2010 Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 8291.4 Thus, the Board cannot ignore its own
official records pertinent to the Petitions on the expediency of
3 Rule XIV, Section 14.7, 1997 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 8291.
4 Rule V, Section 33.
5
technical rules of evidence, which, in the first place, are not strictly
applied in proceedings before quasi-judicial bodies.
As to the Petitioner's fourth argument claiming prescription as
a bar to the deduction effected against their Amelioration allowance,
COLA, and management share in the Provident Fund, even
Petitioners' own assertions belie this claim. The records show that
Petitioners themselves submitted a letter5 dated February 18 , 2003
signed by the President of the GSIS Retirees Association, Inc.
addressed to the President and General Manager of the GSIS, stating,
among others , that the subject PPD benefits were granted five (5)
years ago or in 1998. The erroneously paid PPD benefits, on the
other hand, were recovered from Petitioners in 2003 . The law
provides that the prescriptive period for actions based on quasi-
contracts (solutio indebiti) is six (6) years. 6 Clearly then, the
recovery of the erroneously paid amounts after five (5) years from
the grant is well-within the time frame fixed by law; hence not yet
prescribed at the time of recovery.
The arguments of the Petitioners once again fail to convince
and the motion must necessarily fail. It is quite clear that the basis
in finding that the payment of PPD benefit due to osteoarthritis
granted to Petitioners was erroneous is the law itself and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations and not, as claimed by
5 Annex "D" of the petition of Leyva, e t.al. 6
Article 1145, Civil Code of the Philippines.
6
Petitioners , Board Resolution No. 345 dated November 21, 2001 or
the COA disallowances.
WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding no reversible
error in the Decision dated 23 August 2012, the Motion for
Reconsideration is denied .
SO ORDERED, 2"7 JUN 2013
Pasay City, Philippines, - -------------------·
IEL L. LACSON, JR.
ROBE T G. VEZRA v ·ce Chairman
~'-~~~ KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID
Trustee
GERALD E MARIE BERBERABE-MARTINEZ
Trustee
FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III* Tru s tee
Chairman
~~.£A Trus tee
7
..
Copy furnished:
THE GERSIP ASSOCIATION, INC. No. 10 Road 16, Toro Hills, Project 8, Quezon City
ATTY. AGUSTIN S. SUNDIAM Counsel for Petitioners 8 Pangilinan Drive Toro Hills, Quezon City, M.M.
ATTY. MARIANNE C. ANINGAT Legal Services Group GSIS Financial Center, Roxas Blvd. Pasay City
8
.·
CERTIFICATION
WE, VANESSA JOY B. ONG PE-JONES, Attorney IV, and JOHN ANDREW R. SALAZAR, Attorney V of the GSIS Legal Services Group, having been assigned as Hearing Officers to draft a Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration in GSIS Board of Trustees Consolidated Case Nos. 004-04 and 014-04 entitled "IN THE MATTER OF: CLAIM FOR REFUND OF PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY BENEFITS (OSTEOARTHRITIS) DEDUCTED FROM COLA, AMELIORATION ALLOWANCE AND JUDGMENT DEBT, Gloria G. Leyva, et al. and Leticia De Mesa, et al., petitioners" hereby certify that the statement of facts herein stated and being presented before this Board is accurate and true, based on the records of the case, the pleadings and other documents submitted by the parties.
This certification is issued in compliance with Board Resolution No . 198-A adopted on September 15, 2004.
Pasa~r\ty,
i1 VANESSA JOHN ANDREW R. SALA~
Hearing Officer ~
G S I S Government Service Insurance System Financial Center, Pasay City, Metro Manila 1308
OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE SECRETARY
EXACT COPY OF RES. NO. 63 ADOPTED BY THE GSIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES IN ITS MEETING NO. 11 HELD ON 27 JUNE 2013
Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration in GSIS Consolidated Case Nos. 004-04 and 014-04
RESOLUTION NO. 63
WHEREAS, the GSIS Board of Trustees, through its Resolution No. 133 adopted on 23 August 2012, approved the Decision in GSIS Consolidated Case Nos. 004-04 and 014-04 -entitled In the Matter of: Claim for Refund of Permanent Partial Disability Benefits (Osteoarthritis) Deducted from COLA, Amelioration Allowance and Judgment Debt, Gloria C. Leyva, et al. and Leticia De Mesa, et aL, Petitioners dismissing the consolidated petitions for lack of merit;
WHEREAS. on 8 October 2012, Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the said Decision;
RESOLVED , to APPROVE and CONFIRM the Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration in GSIS Consolidated Case Nos. 004-04 and 014-04, the dispositive portion of which states:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding no reversible error in the Decision dated 23 August 2012, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied."
~ OPGM
I • '
BOARD MEETING NO. 11 27 JUNE 2013
Page 2 (Res. No. 63-20 13)
A copy of the Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration in GSIS Consolidated Case Nos. 004-04 and 014-04 is attached and made an integral part of this Resolution.
CERflFIED CORRECT:
ATJY.~RESAABESAM!S-RAAGAS Corporate Secretary
~ OPGM