Quirico D. Aniñon vs. GSIS, G.R. No.

190410, April 10, 2019

Retirement laws are liberally construed in favor of the retiree-beneficiary.

FACTS
Aniñon rendered intermittent government service from 1969 until 1982. In 1988, he returned to civil service as an
employee of the Supreme Court. In 1989, he resigned to work abroad.

During the time Aniñon was separated from the civil service, the law governing retirement benefits was PD 1146
which mandates that the retiree must have rendered at least 15 years of service to be entitled to retirement benefits.

When he left to work abroad, Aniñon only served the government for 12 years. As the result of voluntary separation,
he received ₱16,345.12 from GSIS representing the refund of his premiums.

In 1996, Aniñon was reinstated as an employee of the PRC, and then CA, and SC. He served the government until
2008.

In 1997, R.A. 8291 took effect. It mandates that retiree must have served at least 15 years in the government to be
eligible for retirement benefits; if the retiree was previously separated or retired but was reinstated or re-employed in
the civil service, his length of service shall include the periods of service at different times but exclude the years of
service for which he was awarded benefits.

GSIS issued an opinion barring full credit of service years to reinstated employees in case they retired prior to the
effectivity of R.A. 8291 and collected the benefits.

DOJ Secretary Gonzalez opined that R.A. 8291 is a social legislation which provides for the retirement and
separation benefits of government employees. It is well-settled that retirement laws are liberally construed in
favor of the retirees:

The inclusion or exclusion of previous services of an employee is dependent on whether employee refunded
his retirement benefits received anytime upon reinstatement to the service. If there was a refund, all his
previous services will be credited in the computation since technically said employee has not received any
retirement or separation benefits.

GSIS then issued Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 183-06. It clarified that a reinstated employee should be
allowed full credit of previous services provided he refund all retirement benefits previously received within 30 days
from publication of PPG No. 183-06.

Aniñon expressed his intention to retire (63 rd birthday). He requested full credit of his 12-year government service
rendered prior to his reinstatement in 1996. He requested to be exempt from PPG No. 183-06, asking that he be
allowed to refund the premiums returned in 1989, or, to have the amount of the premiums deducted from his future
retirement proceeds.

The reuest was denied by GSIS VP Agustin.

Aniñon elevated this to GSIS Board of Trustees which dismissed Aniñon's petition, ruling that contrary to his
argument, PPG No. 183-06 did not violate his right to due process because requirement of publication is met with
publication Manila Bulletin and Philippine Star.

On appeal, CA denied the same. The controversy arose only when he requested the GSIS for an exemption from the
application of PPG 183-06, that is: (a) to allow him to comply with the refund requirement even beyond the
deadline; or (b) to allow him to simply offset the amount of the refund against benefits he would subsequently
receive.

ISSUES
I. Whether the publication of PPG 183-06, absent personal notice served upon Aniñon, sufficiently met the
constitutional requirement of due process
II. Whether he should be exempt from the application of PPG 183-06 pursuant to the principle of liberal construction
of social legislation and retirement laws in favor of the retiree

RULING
I. Yes. As the means to guarantee the constitutional rights to due process and to information on matters of public
concern, laws and rules are to be binding only when their contents are confirmed by a valid publication.

PPG No. 183-06 was published in newspapers of general circulation, Manila Bulletin and in People's Journal and
Philippine Star. (Mandated by Art. 2 of the Civil Code)

II. PPG No. 183-06 did not apply to the petitioner because he was still in active service at the time of its approval.
Also, Aniñon was voluntarily separated from service in 1989. He did not retire or receive retirement benefits
inasmuch as he did not possess the required eligibility at that time. Thus, when he collected the sum of his
premiums, he received only the return of his premiums. GSIS plainly erred in disallowing outright his previous
service for non-compliance with guidelines not even applicable to his situation.
However, in order that his previous service may be appreciated for purposes of computing creditable service,
Aniñon should pay back to the GSIS the premiums returned to him in 1989. Fairness demands that the premiums be
paid for his prior years of service to enable him to receive retirement benefits pertaining to that period. This rule is
consistent with the constitutional prohibition against double compensation in Section 8, Article IX-B, of the 1987
Constitution.

Under Sec. 13-A of RA 8291, a member shall be entitled to retirement benefits provided that: (1) he has rendered at
least fifteen (15) years of service; (2) he is at least sixty (60) years of age at the time of retirement; and (3) he is not
receiving a monthly pension benefit from permanent total disability.

Meeting the length of government service, age, and non-receipt of permanent total disability benefits did not ipso
facto vest the government employee the right to the retirement benefits. He must also have formally "retired" from
service by filing an application for retirement and submitting the required documents to the GSIS.

The submission of the documentary requirements to the GSIS was a condition sine qua non to the vesting of one's
right to the retirement benefits. GSIS was empowered to determine the employee's eligibility to receive retirement
benefits. An individual's entitlement to retirement benefits cannot be left to his self-determination.

At the time of the effectivity of PPG 183-06, Aniñon's retirement benefits were only future benefits over which he
did not have any vested right. As such, the guidelines under PPG 183-06 could not have impaired what was then a
mere expectancy.

Offsetting Method is allowed

Aniñon could be allowed to refund amount through deduction from future retirement proceeds.

GSIS relies on member and employer contributions to properly administer social security and insurance benefits.
However, GSIS cannot deprive Aniñon to the offsetting method, which is allowed by Sec. 16 of the Revised
Implementing Rules.

Here, Aniñon was separated from service in 1989 and received a return of his contributions but he continued to be a
GSIS member and remained entitled to certain benefits. Thus, his eligibility to receive retirement benefits should not
be affected by a deficiency in his account.

Social legislation, such as retirement laws, must be liberally construed in the retiree-beneficiary's favor. Such laws
must be interpreted in a way that protects and enhances a government employee's quality of life after devoting his
prime years to the civil service.

Therefore, the Court directed GSIS to process petitioner's retirement benefits.