Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint/petition is hereby DISMISSED without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
Accordingly, respondent's lump sum payment was decreased to P384,295.80 and his monthly pension was pegged at P5,886.77. [5] Unsatisfied with the computation, respondent wrote a letter to the GSIS and inquired as to the legal basis for such computation. It appears that the re-computation was made as a result of the implementation of Policy and Procedural Guidelines No. 171-03 (PPG No. 171-03) dated March 24, 2003 issued by then GSIS President and General Manager Winston F. Garcia. PPG No. 171-03 was subsequently approved by the GSIS Board of Trustees in Resolution No. 90 dated April 2, 2003. [6] Declaratory Relief, Mandamus, and Damages. [7] In his petition, respondent interpreted the provisions of PPG No. 171-03 as gravely prejudicial to him since the starting point in the computation of the creditable service of a retiree shall be the date of the payment of monthly contributions, [8] whereas the starting point as regards Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8291 or The Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997 is the date of original appointment. [9] Instead of filing an answer, GSIS filed a Motion to Dismiss, citing the grounds of failure to state a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. GSIS argued that respondent failed to establish how his right was violated and that R.A. No. 8291 vests in the GSIS Board of Trustees the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes on laws administered by it. [10] Proceedings before the RTC The RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss in a Resolution dated November 8, 2004. [11] However, the RTC reversed its earlier Resolution upon respondent's filing of a Motion for Reconsideration. In an Order [12] dated February 10, 2005, the RTC ruled on the invalidity of Resolution No. 90 and PPG No. 171-03 as the same were not published in the Official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation. The RTC, likewise, refused to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction because it considered the issue raised as a question of law. [13] GSIS filed its Answer to the petition. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. [14] In a Decision [15] dated July 29, 2008, the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Section 30 [16] of R.A. No. 8291. The RTC maintained that the GSIS has jurisdiction over the subject matter as the computation of respondent's retirement benefits was in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function. The fallo thereof reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint/petition is hereby DISMISSED without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.