G.R. No. 158071 ; April 2, 2009
JOSE SANTOS, Petitioner, vs. COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS SETTLEMENT, and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose S. Santos retired from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) on August 16, 1986, under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1616 after almost 21 years of service. He was re-employed on January 2, 1989, in the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. In 1997, he initiated moves to avail of early retirement under R.A. No. 660 and received a tentative computation of benefits amounting to ₱667,937.40 from the GSIS Operating Unit. He formally applied in January 1998. However, in a letter dated May 4, 1998, the GSIS Operating Unit informed him he could no longer retire under R.A. No. 660 but only under R.A. No. 8291 , with a reduced benefit of ₱81,557.20, which did not credit his prior DAR service. His appeal to the GSIS Committee on Claims was denied. The GSIS Board of Trustees, in a decision dated February 15, 2000, denied his petition to retire under R.A. No. 660 and ordered processing of his retirement under the gratuity plan of R.A. No. 1616 or the pension plan of R.A. No. 8291 , upon his formal indication. Petitioner was compulsorily retired on March 20, 2000. His motion for reconsideration, citing other re-employed retirees allowed to choose their retirement law, was denied. He then filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA).

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it raised only a pure question of law, which should have been brought directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure allows an appeal to the CA from awards or decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the GSIS, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. Therefore, an appeal solely on a question of law may properly be brought to the CA under Rule 43. However, the Supreme Court found no reason to remand the case, as the core issue could be resolved based on the records. On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8291 , service credited for a previous retirement for which benefits have been awarded shall be excluded from the computation of service in case of re-employment. As a re-employed member retiring during the effectivity of R.A. No. 8291 , petitioner could not have his prior DAR service credited, nor could he choose a retirement mode other than that provided under R.A. No. 8291 . Consequently, while the CA erred procedurally, the petition was denied on the merits.