GR L 11001; (November, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11001; November 23, 1960
FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO, petitioner-appellant, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
On December 15, 1949, petitioner Fortunato V. Borromeo, then an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, retired under Act No. 2589 and received a gratuity of P24,000.00. On August 6, 1954, after the enactment of Republic Act No. 1057 (amending Republic Act No. 910 ), petitioner applied for retirement under these later laws. The respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) found him entitled to benefits under them. Pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 910 , as amended, petitioner was entitled to a lump sum payment equivalent to five years’ salary, totaling P60,000.00. However, GSIS deducted the P24,000.00 gratuity previously received by petitioner under Act No. 2589 . Petitioner filed an action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cebu to compel payment of the deducted amount. The trial court sustained the legality of the deduction, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the gratuity received by petitioner under Act No. 2589 is deductible from the retirement benefits he is entitled to under Republic Acts No. 910 and No. 1057.
RULING
Yes, the deduction is legal and proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment.
The Court held that Section 1 of Act No. 2589 provides that any officer entitled to its benefits, and who is also entitled to benefits from any pension fund created by authority of the Philippine Legislature, must choose which benefits to avail. Republic Act No. 910 , as amended, constitutes such a pension fund or plan. By applying for benefits under this later act, petitioner made his choice and is entitled only to the benefits so chosen. This necessarily implies that the gratuity already received under Act No. 2589 must be deducted from the more extensive benefits under the amended Act No. 910 .
Furthermore, the gratuity under Act No. 2589 and the retirement benefits under the amended Act No. 910 were both in consideration of petitioner’s government service. Allowing him to receive full benefits under the later laws without deduction would result in a double pension for the same services. The rule in construing pension and gratuity laws is that, absent an express provision to the contrary, they should be interpreted to prevent double compensation. The policy against double pensions is expressed in both Act No. 2589 and Act No. 910 . The fact that Acts No. 910 and No. 1057 were enacted after petitioner’s initial retirement does not negate this policy; rather, it provides greater reason for its application unless expressly contradicted by the later law, which they are not. The reasoning in Espejo vs. The Auditor General is applicable by analogy, supporting the deduction to prevent the petitioner from benefiting under two retirement laws for the same service.