G.R. No. 186560; November 17, 2010
Government Service Insurance System vs. Fernando P. De Leon

FACTS

Respondent Fernando P. De Leon retired in 1992 as Chief State Prosecutor after 44 years of government service. His application for retirement benefits under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910, a law for justices and judges, was approved by petitioner GSIS based on a statute equating chief state prosecutors with judges. For over nine years, De Leon received his monthly pension without issue. In 2001, GSIS abruptly stopped his pension payments upon advice from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) that he was not legally covered by R.A. No. 910. Despite De Leon’s inquiries, GSIS only formally responded in 2007, refusing to resume payments or allow conversion to another retirement law, citing prohibitions against double retirement and the exclusivity of benefits under the GSIS Act.
De Leon filed a petition for mandamus before the Court of Appeals to compel GSIS to continue his pension and pay arrears. The CA granted the petition, ordering GSIS to pay his monthly adjusted pension under an applicable law other than R.A. No. 910, including back pensions from the time of discontinuance. The CA ruled that the error in allowing retirement under R.A. No. 910 was not attributable to De Leon and that he remained entitled to lifetime pension benefits under general GSIS laws. GSIS appealed, arguing mandamus was improper due to the absence of a clear legal right and that the CA failed to specify the applicable law for payment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of mandamus to compel GSIS to pay retirement pension benefits to De Leon under laws other than R.A. No. 910.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The legal logic is anchored on principles of equity and statutory entitlement. While De Leon was correctly deemed ineligible for the specialized benefits of R.A. No. 910, this ineligibility does not extinguish his fundamental right to a lifetime pension earned through 44 years of government service under the general GSIS laws, particularly R.A. No. 660, as amended. The error in the initial classification was administrative and solely attributable to GSIS’s own approval; De Leon, having relied in good faith on this approval for years, cannot be penalized by a total deprivation of benefits.
Mandamus was properly issued because GSIS has a clear ministerial duty to pay pensions to a qualified retiree under the correct law. His right to a pension is certain and unmistakable, even if the initial legal basis was wrong. The Court clarified that ordering payment under “other applicable law” directs GSIS to perform its statutory function of computing and disbursing benefits pursuant to the correct GSIS scheme applicable to his service record. This does not sanction double retirement but rectifies an administrative error to prevent a grave injustice. GSIS, as the administrator, possesses the expertise to determine the appropriate law and compute the benefits accordingly.