Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
162372 gsis vs coa

162372 gsis vs coa

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5 |Likes:
Published by Jon de Castro

More info:

Published by: Jon de Castro on Oct 16, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
laepublit
of
tbe
~biltppines
~nprtnte
af:ourt
Jltlantla
EN BANC
GOVEI~NMENT
SERVICE
INSURANCE
SYSTEI\1 (GSIS),
IIERMOGENES
n.
CONCEPCION,
.JR.,
'VINSTON
F.
GARCIA,
UEYNALDO
l'.
PALMIERY, LEOVIGILOO
P.
ARRELLANO,
ELMEil
T.
BAUTISTA,
LEONORA
V.
OE
JESUS,
FULGENCIO
S.
FACTORAN,
FLORINO
0.
IBANEZ, AIDA
C.
NOCETE,
AURORA
P.
MATHAY,
ENRIQlJETA
DISlJANCO,
AMALIO
lVIALLAIU,
LOURDESPATAG,IUCHAHJ)
l\1.
MARTINEZ,
ASUNCION
C.SINI>AC,
GLORIA
I>.
CAEOO,
ROMEO
C.
QUILATAN,
ESPERANZA FALLORINA,LOLITA
BACANI, AUNULFOMADRIAGA,
LEOCAiliA
S.
FAJAIUlO, BENIGNO
BULAONG,
SHIIlLEY
D.
FLORENTINO,
and
LEA
l\1.
MENDIOLA,
Petitioners,
-
versus
-
G.R.
No. 162372Present:SERENO,
C./,
CARPIO,VEl ,ASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,
DRION,PERAI,TA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,ARAD,VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
REYES,
and
PER LAS-BERNABE,
JJ.
C0l\1MISSION
ON
AlllliT
Promulgated:
(COA),
AMORSONIA
B.
ESCARDA,
l\·1A.
CRISTINA
Il.
DIMAGIBA,
and
REYNALDO
P.
)
VENTURA
f?J#t
' Respondents.
SEPTEMBER
11,
2012
X --------------------------------------------------X
 
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 162372
R E S O L U T I O NLEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
 J.
:
Romeo C. Quilatan, in his capacity as one of the petitioners in
GSIS,et al. v. Commission on Audit, et al.
, and in representation of his fellowGovernment Service Insurance System (GSIS) officers and employees whoretired under the GSIS RFP (Retirement/Financial Plan), filed a
Motion forClarification and Reconsideration
dated November 7, 2011, and a
Manifestation to Supplement the Motion for Clarification andReconsideration
dated January 20, 2012, of this Court’s October 11, 2011Decision in the said case. On May 17, 2012, Quilatan filed a
FinalMemorandum and Summary of Arguments,
which he followed-up onAugust 28, 2012, with another
Manifestation to Supplement [the] FinalMemorandum and Summary of Arguments.
 On November 11, 2011, Federico Pascual, Daniel N. Mijares, ElviraU. Geronimo, Aurora P. Mathay, Manuel P. Bausa, Rustico G. DelosAngeles, Lourdes Delos Angeles, Sonia S. Sindac, Marina Santamaria, theEstate of Lourdes G. Patag represented by Napolen Patag, and VicenteVillegas (Movants Federico Pascual,
et al
.), who are some of the payeesnamed in the decision, filed an
Entry of Appearance with Motion forLeave of Court to Admit the Motion for Clarification
filed on the sameday. The Movants Federico Pascual,
et al
. later on furnished Quilatan acopy of this Motion, as per their Compliance/Manifestation dated July 20,2012, which this Court notes.On February 22, 2012, Quilatan filed a Manifestation and Motion toDefer Execution of Judgment, alleging that GSIS, the main petitioner in thecase, which no longer contested this Court’s October 11, 2011 Decision, had
 
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 162372
started to send out demand letters from the payees, asking them to refund theamounts they had received as retirement benefits under the GSIS RFP.In his Manifestations, Memorandum, and Motion for Clarification andReconsideration of this Court’s October 11, 2011 Decision, Quilatan raisesseveral grounds, all of which were already addressed in said Decision.Movants Federico Pascual,
et al
., however, raised in their Motion forClarification, a new issue, which this Court will address, to wit:
Whether or not the payees should be compelled to returnthe retirement benefits they had received under the GSISRFP.
In essence, the Movants Federico Pascual
 , et al
. are asking this Courtto reconsider our Decision in so far as their liability, as the payees, to returnthe benefits they had already received, by applying our rulings in
 Molen, Jr.v. Commission on Audit 
,
1
 
 De Jesus v. Commission on Audit 
,
2
 
 Magno v.Commission on Audit 
,
3
 
 Baybay Water District v. Commission on Audit 
,
4
 
 Barbo v. Commission on Audit 
,
5
 
 Bases Conversion and Development  Authority v. Commission on Audit 
,
6
among others, wherein, despite thisCourt’s disapproval of the allowances and/or benefits the payees thereinreceived, for being contrary to the law applicable in those cases, this Courtdid not require such payees to refund the monies they had received in goodfaith.On April 11, 2012, the public respondents, through the Office of theSolicitor General, commented and agreed with the Movants Federico
1
493 Phil. 874 (2005).
2
451 Phil. 812 (2003).
3
G.R. No. 149941, August 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 339.
4
425 Phil. 326 (2002).
5
G.R. No. 157542, October 10, 2008, 568 SCRA 302.
6
G.R. No. 178160, February 26, 2009, 580 SCRA 295.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->