G.R. No. L-21723 November 26, 1970
HILARION BERONILLA, petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, its BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Hilarion Beronilla, acting Auditor of the Philippine National Bank and a GSIS member, filed a special civil action for prohibition. He sought to declare null and void Resolution No. 1497 of the GSIS Board of Trustees dated August 9, 1963, which considered him compulsorily retired effective January 14, 1963. The petition alleged the resolution was issued in excess of power, with abuse of discretion, violating contracts and due process. All official records from 1917 to 1954, including his applications and Member’s Service Record, indicated his birth date as January 14, 1898. In 1959, he requested the Civil Service Commissioner to change his birth date to January 14, 1900, claiming he discovered his true birth year in 1955 based on his mother’s statement and supporting affidavits. The GSIS Legal Counsel denied his request in 1959 and 1960. However, on appeal, General Manager Rodolfo Andal approved the change on June 2, 1960, based on a favorable recommendation. Consequently, GSIS records were adjusted, his insurance policy was recomputed, and a new policy was issued reflecting the new date. In 1963, Auditor Ismael Mathay informed the GSIS Board that Beronilla had been paid beyond his 65th birthday (January 14, 1963, if born in 1898). The Board, without notifying Beronilla, adopted the disputed resolution reversing the General Manager’s approval and enforcing retirement based on the original 1898 birth date.

ISSUE

Whether the GSIS Board of Trustees acted within its powers when it reversed the approval by General Manager Andal of petitioner’s request for the change of his date of birth, considering allegations of res adjudicata, laches, estoppel, denial of due process, and impairment of contractual obligations.

RULING

The Court upheld the superior authority of the Board over the General Manager and dismissed the petition. The GSIS charter (Commonwealth Act 186) provides that the System “shall be managed by the Board of Trustees,” which has the power to adopt rules and regulations for administration. The General Manager is the chief executive officer of the Board, and his powers are subject to the Board’s approval. The Board’s conferment of authority to the General Manager cannot be considered a complete delegation that diminishes the Board’s ultimate control and responsibility. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the secondary issue of whether the General Manager or the Legal Counsel had final authority on birth date changes under internal resolutions, as this was subordinate to the main proposition that the General Manager’s decision is subject to the Board’s review and final action. The Board acted within its statutory powers in reversing the General Manager’s approval.