G.R. No. L-11580. May 09, 1958

The pertinent facts are correctly set forth in appellant’s brief, from which
we quote:

“The petitioner-appellant, former District Supervisor in the Bureau of Public
Schools with 33 years in the classified civil service, was laid off’ on February
X, 1951 by virtue of Executive No, 392 in pursuance of the Reorganization Act
known as Republic Act No. 422, which abolished his position. Accordingly, he
received P2,760.00 as gratuity equivalent to one year salary as district
supervisor.

“On July 9, 1952, petitioner-appellant filed with respondent-appellee an
application for retirement insurance benefit under Republic Act No. 660, as
amended, electing monthly joint life annuity without definite period but payable
during lifetime with his wife, subject to reduction, upon the death of either
spouse, to one-half of the amount in favor of the survivor. The application was
approved, effective February 1, 1951; and by reason of the approval of his
application, he has been receiving the monthly annuity of P62.15, payable at the
end of each month. The respondent-appellee fixed the monthly annuity of only
P62.15 after deducting in its computation the gratuity of P2,760.00 previously
granted by operation of Executive Order No. 392 and in pursuance of Republic Act
No. 422. Without deduction by way of refund, the monthly annuity would be P79.63
instead of the lesser amount; and such refund has been affected under Resolution
No. 131, series of 1953 of the GSIS Board of Trustees (respondent-appellee). The
appellee still continues making the deduction and the applicant, who has never
been reinstated or re-employed in the government service, questions as unlawful
such refund.”

Contending that the gratuity under Republic Act No. 422 should not be
deducted from his annuity under Republic Act No. 660, petitioner Marcelino
Gabriel instituted this action for mandamus in order to discontinue said
deduction by respondent Government Service Insurance System and to recover all
amounts heretofore deducted from his annuity, with legal interest, and costs.
The Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment for respondent. Hence,
this appeal by petitioner.

The only issue is whether the gratuity, received by petitioner under
Executive Order No. 392, pursuant to Republic Act No. 422, is deductible from
his annuity under Republic Act No. 660.

Respondent, maintains the affirmative, and the lower court sustained this
view, relying upon the second paragraph of section 26, Republic Act No. 660.
Petitioner insist, however, that Executive Order No. 392 and Republic Act No.
422 intended to give, to those separated from the service under the provisions
of both, a legal right to the gratuity therein granted, “without any condition
of refund requirement, nor any string attached to it,” in the words of
petitioner; that there is no incompatibility between the gratuity under Republic
Act No. 422 and the retirement insurance benefit under Republic Act No. 660; and
that Congress intended to give both to those retired under Republic Act No.
422.

The question for us to determine is not whether Republic Act No. 422 and
Executive Order 392 impose any qualifications upon the gratuity therein
provided. We are here concerned with intent of the lawmaker in the enactment of
Republic Act No. 660. The second paragraph of section 26 thereof provides:

“Notwithstanding any provisions of this Act to the contrary, any officer or
employee whose position was abolished or who was separated from the service as a
consequence of the reorganization provided for in Republic Act Numbered Four
hundred and twenty-two may be retired under the provisions of this Act if
qualified: Provided, That any gratuity or retirement benefit already received by
him shall be refunded to the System. * * *”

It is clear from this paragraph, not only that Congress did not propose to
give to those separated from the service under Executive Order No. 392, in
relation to Republic Act No. 422, the benefits of the retirement insurance
benefits under Republic Act No. 660, in addition to the gratuity received under
said Executive Order No. 392 and Republic Act No. 422, but, also, that our
lawmakers intended this gratuity to be excluded by the enjoyment of said
retirement insurance benefits.

Again, said Republic Act No. 660 does not seek to deprive anybody of his
vested rights. However, one separated from the service under Republic Act No.
422 is given in Republic Act No. 660 the option to avail of the benefits of the
retirement insurance provided in the latter, subject to the condition that “any
gratuity or retirement benefits already received by him should be refunded to
the System.” Petitioner necessarily accepted this condition when he applied for
the benefits of Republic Act No. 660. In other words, it is he, by voluntarily
choosing to be under Republic Act No. 660, who divested himself of his right to
said gratuity.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against
petitioner-appellant.

It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.