GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.

Ruling

Accordingly, there being no new, sufficient and material evidence adduced as would warrant a reversal or modification of the decision herein sought to be reconsidered, this Commission denies with finality the instant motion for reconsideration for utter lack of merit. [10] Hence, this petition, challenging the above decision and resolution of the COA on the following grounds: A.) RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE POWER SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1146, AS AMENDED, TO THE GSIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TO ESTABLISH AND FIX THE APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION PACKAGE FOR GSIS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES HAS ALREADY BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6758. B.) RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITONERS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DESPITE THE DECLARATION BY THIS HONORABLE COURT IN THE CASE OF RODOLFO S. DE JESUS et al. vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT and LEONARDO L. JAMORALIN , THAT CCC NO. 10 - THE MAIN BASIS OF THE QUESTIONED DISALLOWANCE - IS INVALID AND INEFFECTIVE FOR LACK OF THE REQUIRED PUBLICATION. [11] II. G.R. No. 141625 This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was precipitated by the factual antecedents of G.R. No. 138381. While GSIS was appealing the disallowances made by the Corporate Auditor above, some of its employees retired and submitted the requisite papers for the processing of their retirement benefits. Since the retired employees received allowances and benefits which had been disallowed by the Corporate Auditor, GSIS required them to execute deeds of consent that would authorize GSIS to deduct from their retirement benefits the previously paid allowances, in case these were finally adjudged to be improper. Some of the retired employees agreed to sign the deed, while others did not. Nonetheless, GSIS went ahead with the deductions. On April 16, 1998, a number of these retired GSIS employees [12] (hereafter referred to as retirees) brought Case No. 001-98 before the GSIS Board of Trustees (hereafter referred to as GSIS Board) questioning the legality of the deductions. They claimed that COA disallowances can not be deducted from retirement benefits, considering that these were explicitly exempted from such deductions under the last paragraph of Section 39, Republic Act No. 8291, which states: SEC. 39. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. - x x x x x x x x x x x x The funds and/or the properties referred to herein as well as the benefits, sums or monies corresponding to the benefits under this Act shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, execution, levy or other processes issued by the courts, quasi-judicial agencies or administrative bodies including Commission on Audit (COA) disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members, including his pecuniary accountability arising from or caused or occasioned by his exercise or performance