FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

On December 15, 1949, petitioner, then an associate justice of the Court of
Appeals, retired under the provisions of Act No. 2589 and received a gratuity in
the total amount of P24,000.00. On August 6, 1954, after the enactment of
Republic Act 1057, amending Act 910, petitioner applied for retirement under
their provisions and respondent found him entitled thereto. Pursuant to Section
3 Republic Act 910, as amended, petitioner was entitled to a lump sum payment
equivalent to his salary for five years, or the total amount of P60,000.00.,
from which, however, respondent deducted the P24,000.00 gratuity which the
former had already received. Petitioner brought this action for mandamus in the
Court of First Instance of Cebu to compel respondent to pay the aforementioned
amount. : Sail court sustained the legality of the deduction; hence this appeal
by petitioner.

The only issue here is whether the gratuity received by petitioner under the
provisions of Act 2589 is deductible from the retirement benefits to which he
was subsequently found to be entitled under the provisions of Republic Acts 910
and 1057.

The answer must be in the affirmative.

Section 1 of Act 2589 itself provides that any officer or employee entitled
to its benefits, and “who is entitled to any benefits from any pension fund
created by authority of the Philippine Legislature”-without specifying whether
the pension fund was created before or after its enactment-shall be required to
designate which of such benefits he desires to take advantage of, and in such
case he shall be entitled only to the benefits so chosen. It is beyond question
that Republic Act 910, as amended, constituted or created a pension fund or
plan. Therefore, when petitioner applied for the benefits provided for in said
act, as amended, he must be deemed to have made his choice. Consequently, he is
entitled only to the benefits so chosen-this carrying the natural and necessary
implication that the gratuity already received by him under Act 2589 must be
deducted from the more extensive benefits petitioner was entitled to receive
under the provisions of Act 910, as amended.

The gratuity received by petitioner under Act 2589 was obviously in
consideration of his services to the government as of his retirement on December
15, 1949. It is similarly obvious that the retirement benefits he was found to
be entitled to receive under the provisions of Act 910, as amended, were in
consideration of the same services to the government. Therefore, for petitioner
to receive full benefits under the later laws, in addition to the gratuity he
had already received under Act 2589, would amount to allowing him to receive
double pension for exactly the same services as consideration. The rule in
construing or applying pension and gratuity laws is that, in the absence of
express provision to the contrary, they will be so interpreted as to prevent any
person from receiving a double compensation. (70 C.J.S., sec. 5, p. 429).

Although the facts involved in the present case are not exactly the same as
those in Espejo vs. The Auditor General, etc. (97 Phil., 216; 51 Off.
Gaz. No. 6, pp. 2863-2864), we believe that the reason for the decision in the
latter is applicable to the one before us. The deduction of the gratuity already
received by petitioner under Act 2589 from what he was to receive under the
provisions of Act 910, as amended, is, as stated in the Espejo case, “justified
by the common sense consideration that if the petitioner is being credited with
his services prior to 1945 in computing his retirement annuity, it is but just
that all retirement benefits received by him prior to that date should also be
charged to his account. Otherwise, the petitioner would benefit both under Act
4051 and Republic Act 660, which is contrary to the plain intent of the
law.”

That Acts 910 and 1057 were enacted after petitioner’s retirement is not a
circumstance of sufficient weight to justify our ignoring the general policy of
the State-ex-pressed both in Act 2589 as well as in Act 910-against doable
pensions for the same services. To the contrary, the fact that even after
petitioners’ retirement under Act 2589 another pension law was enacted under
which he could claim greater benefits affords a greater reason for the
application of the general policy against double pensions, unless the contrary
was expressly and clearly provided in the later enactment, Acts 910 and 1057 do
not contain such provision. ,

Wherefore, finding the appealed judgment to be in accordance with law and the
facts of the case, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ.,
concur.

Judgment affirmed.