BOARD OF TRUSTEES

IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT BENEFIT PENDING APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SANDIGANBAYAN DECISION,

ROSINDO J. ALMONTE, Petitioner.

GSIS Case No. 001-21

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

NOTICE OF DECISIONPlease be notified that the GSIS Board of Trustees issued Board Resolution No. 135 dated 26 October 2021 approving and confirming the Decision in the abovementioned case. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.

The Committee on Claims decision dated 14 January 2021 is AFFIRMED.

The Petitioner’s claim for the RELEASE of his RETIREMENT BENEFITS from GSIS is SUSPENDED PENDING the resolution of his criminal case by the SUPREME COURT in the case entitled, Arnold D. Navalez, Rey C. Chavez, Rosindo J. Almonte and Alfonso E. Laid. Et al. vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 219598)

SO ORDERED.”

Copies of the Board Resolution as well as the Decision are enclosed herein for your information and guidance.

In accordance with Policy and Procedural Guidelines (PPG) No. 369-21 otherwise known as the Revised Guidelines on Petitions and Motions for Reconsideration Pertaining to Quasi-Judicial Cases, you have 15 calendar days from receipt of this Notice and Decision to file a Motion for Reconsideration. Kindly notify the Office of the Corporate Secretary of the date when this Notice was received.

Please be advised that a copy of the Decision is available in the GSIS Reports section of the GSIS website pursuant to Section 29.8 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of Republic Act No. 8291.

Pasay City, 16 November 2021.

ATTY. LUZ VICTORIA F. REYES-MORANDO Clerk of the GSIS

Atty. JAN MERYLL M. DEIPARINE Counsel for Petitioner PIZARRAS FLORES OLANDESCA and Associates Law Offices, 20th Floor Security Bank Centre, 6776 Ayala Ave., Makati City

Mr. ROSINDO J. ALMONTE Petitioner No. 47 Manga Ave. DA Homes, Pampanga Davao City

2021

55

GSIS Case No. 001-21 Rosindo J. Almonte

Page 2 of 2

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Nora M. Malubay Executive Vice President Core Business Sector

- and -Chairperson, Committee on Claims

Mr. Eduardo V. Fernandez Atty. Jason C. Teng Senior Vice President Senior Vice President NCR Operations Group VisMin Operations Group GSIS Pasay City GSIS Pasay City

Ms. Salvacion P. Mate Senior Vice President Luzon Operations Group GSIS Pasay City

Atty. Maria Lourdes B. Alarcon-Leones Atty. Lucio L. Yu, Jr. Chief Legal Counsel Assistant Chief Legal Counsel Legal Services Group Adjudication and Policy Office GSIS Pasay City Legal Services Group

GSIS Pasay City

Atty. Cristina V. Astudillo Atty. Arvin H. Pajaron Hearing Officer Counsel for the CoC Adjudication Department Prosecution and Quasi-Judicial Cases Dept. Legal Services Group Litigation Office, Legal Services Group GSIS Pasay City GSIS Pasay City

Atty. Corazon Tanglao-Dacanay Atty. Maria Vita Esper M. Vicedo Secretariat Head Assistant Secretariat Head Committee on Claims Committee on Claims GSIS Pasay City GSIS Pasay City

2021

55

OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE SECRETARY

EXACT COPY OF RES. NO. _____ ADOPTED BY THE GSIS BOARD OF

TRUSTEES IN ITS MEETING NO. 20 HELD ON 26 OCTOBER 2021

Approval of the Decision in GSIS Case No. 001-21, In the

Matter of Request for Payment of Retirement Benefit Pending Appeal to the Supreme Court of Sandiganbayan

Decision, Rosindo J. Almonte, Petitioner1

RESOLUTION NO. _____

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 30 of Republic Act No. 8291 (GSIS Act of 1997), the GSIS has

original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising from the application of the laws

administered by the GSIS;

WHEREAS, Mr. Rosindo J. Almonte filed a Petition before the GSIS Board of Trustees, docketed

as GSIS Case No. 001-21, seeking the reversal of the 14 January 2021 Decision of the Committee on

Claims (CoC) which denied his request for GSIS to release his retirement benefits pending the resolution of his criminal case by the Supreme Court which he

appealed from the decision of the Sandiganbayan;

RESOLVED, to APPROVE and CONFIRM the Decision in GSIS Case No. 001-21, In the Matter of

Request for Payment of Retirement Benefit Pending Appeal to the Supreme Court of Sandiganbayan

Decision, Rosindo J. Almonte, Petitioner, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the

petition is DENIED. The CoC Decision dated 14 January 2021 is AFFIRMED. The Petitioner’s claim for the RELEASE of his

RETIREMENT BENEFITS from GSIS is SUSPENDED PENDING the resolution of his

criminal case by the SUPREME COURT in the case entitled, Arnold D. Navalez, Rey C. Chavez, Rosindo J. Almonte and Alfonso E.

Laid. et al. vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 219598).

SO ORDERED.

1 Classification: Confidential

135

135

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

BR No. ________-2021

Approval of the Decision in GSIS Case No. 001-21, In the

Matter of Request for Payment of Retirement Benefit

Pending Appeal to the Supreme Court of Sandiganbayan

Decision, Rosindo J. Almonte, Petitioner

Board Meeting No. 20

26 October 2021

Page 2 of 2

A copy of the Decision in GSIS Case No. 001-21 is attached and made an integral part of this

Resolution.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

ATTY. LUZ VICTORIA F. REYES-MORANDO

Corporate Secretary

CONFIRMED:

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Chairman

ROLANDO L. MACASAET WILFREDO C. MALDIA

Vice Chairman Trustee

JOCELYN DE GUZMAN CABREZA ALAN R. LUGA Trustee Trustee

NINA RICCI A. YNARES-CHIONGBIAN ANTHONY B. SASIN Trustee Trustee

KAHAR H. MACASAYON CARLO ANTONIO B. ALMIRANTE Trustee Trustee

135

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM Financial Center, Reclamation Area, Pasay City

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

IN THE MATTER OF REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT BENEFIT PENDING APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SANDIGANBAYAN DECISION

GSIS Case No. 001-21 ROSINDO J. ALMONTE,

Petitioner. x--------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Before the Board is a Petition seeking the reversal of the CoC Decision

dated 14 January 2021 which denied the Petitioner’s request for GSIS to

release his retirement benefits pending the resolution of his criminal case by

the Supreme Court which he appealed from the decision of the

Sandiganbayan.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petitioner was an employee of the Davao City Water District from 27

July 1990 until his retirement on 5 March 2020, rendering a Total Length of

Service with the government for 30.07383 years.

On 6 March 2020, Petitioner filed with the GSIS Davao Branch Office

(DBO) an application for retirement benefits which included, among others,

a Sworn Declaration of Pendency/ Non-Pendency of Case. In the said

document, Petitioner disclosed that he had a pending criminal case before

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

2

the Supreme Court in the case entitled, Arnold D. Navalez, Rey C. Chavez,

Rosindo J. Almonte and Alfonso E. Laid. et al. vs. People of the

Philippines (Navalez vs. People), G.R. No. 219598.

In his letter dated 26 May 2020, GSIS DBO Manager Deity Manampan

informed the Petitioner that his application will be held in abeyance pending

the resolution of his criminal case. He cited Rule III, Section 6 of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations of the R.A. No. 10164, entitled, “An Act

Requiring All Concerned Government Agencies to Ensure the Early Release

of the Retirement Pay, Pensions, Gratuities and Other Benefits of Retiring

Government Employees.”

In his Reply dated 29 June 2020, Petitioner clarified that his case,

Navalez vs. People, is a criminal case and not an administrative case. Hence,

the cited rule on withholding retirement benefits does not apply to him as it

allegedly only applies to administrative cases and not to criminal cases.

In his letter dated 20 July 2020, Manager Manampan addressed the fact

that the Petitioner’s case pending for resolution is a criminal case and not an

administrative case in the following manner, viz:

May we invite your attention to Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 1302242, promulgated on 01 October 2013, which amended the IRR of RA 10154, Section 1 of CSC Resolution No. 1302242 states as follows:

Section1 1. Sections 4, 7 and 8 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations states as follows:

Section 1. Section 4, 7 and 8 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 1 of 101554 is hereby amended to read as follows:

1. Section 4, Rule II of the IRR of R.A. No. 10154 is hereby amended to read as follows:

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

3

“Section 4. Definition of Terms. For purposes of these Rules, the following terms shall mean:

xxx xxx

d. Pending case- shall refer to either a criminal oradministrative case. An administrative disciplinary case. An administrative disciplinary case is considered pending when the disciplining authority has issued a formal charge or notice of charges to the respondent, while a criminal case shall be considered pending from the time an information or Complaint is filed in Court.

In her letter dated 9 November 2020, GSIS Vice President for Mindanao

Vilma L. Fuentes affirmed the findings of Manager Manampan. Thus, the

matter was elevated to the CoC for resolution. However, Petitioner’s claim

was also denied in the 14 January 2021 Decision of the CoC, viz:

WHEREFORE, the request of Rosindo J. Almonte for the release of his retirement benefits pending the decision of the Supreme Court on his appeal re the Sandiganbayan decision in SB-07-CRM-0067 is DENIED.

Hence, this appeal before the Board.

In his Petition, Petitioner asserted the following arguments:

a. The phrase, “pending cases” under R.A. No. 10154 that affects

the release of one’s retirement benefits from GSIS, exclusively

pertains to administrative cases. CSC Resolution No. 1302242

which amended such term exceeds the bounds of the law and

is ultra vires. The CSC’s administrative issuance must not

override and must be consistent with the law it seeks to

implement. When there is conflict between the law and the

rules and regulations implementing the law, the law should

prevail.

b. Petitioner’s retirement benefits cannot be withheld by GSIS

since the 26 March 2015 Decision of the Sandiganbayan,

which is now subject to appeal before the Supreme Court, did

not find any pecuniary liability against him.

c. Petitioner also averred that the Office of the Ombudsman

dismissed the administrative case against him which arose

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

4

from the same set of facts as the criminal case which he

appealed before the Supreme Court. He concluded that “if the

Court cannot convict the petitioner in the administrative case,

all the more reason the Court cannot convict the petitioner in

the criminal case”.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Committee on Claims erred in suspending the

release of Petitioner’s retirement benefits pending the Decision of the

Supreme Court on his Appeal of the Sandiganbayan’s Decision in SB-07-CRM-

0067.

2. Whether the Petitioner maybe allowed to claim his retirement

benefits pending the resolution of his Criminal Case from the Supreme Court.

RULING

A proper disposition of this case requires a review of the nature of the

offense of the Petitioner in his pending criminal case and the possible

penalties for said violation.

The 26 March 2015 Decision of the Sandiganbayan reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, the Court finds accused WILLIAM VELASCO GUILLEN, REY CANETE CHAVEZ, ARNOLD DOMINGO NAVALES, ROSINDO JAPAY ALMONTE AND ALFONSO EDEN LAID GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended. Accordingly,they are hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminatepenalty of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum,to ten (10) years, as maximum, with perpetualdisqualification.

Since the Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the persons of accused WILFREDO A CARBONQUILLO and WILFRED GACUS YAMSON, the case against them is ordered archived, the same to be revived upon their arrest.

SO ORDERED.

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

5

The above ruling indeed did not include any pecuniary liability or the

penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits as penalty to the finding of guilt

of the Petitioner under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Hence, is there really a

need for GSIS to suspend the release of Petitioner’s retirement benefits as it

awaits the Supreme Court decision on the appealed Sandiganbayan ruling?

We answer in the affirmative.

For clarity, Petitioner was found guilty with the violation of Section 3

(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, entitled, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act.

Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 states:

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

Xxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including theGovernment, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

Section 9 of R.A. No. 3019 provides the penalties for the violation of

Section 3 (e) of the said law.1 Additionally, Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019

1Section 9. Penalties for violations. (a) Any public officer or private person committing

any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.

Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the amount of money or the thing he may have given to the accused, or the value of such thing.

(b) Any public officer violation any of the provisions of Section 7 of thisAct shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

6

provides the following suspension and loss of benefits for any public officer

who is found guilty in a criminal prosecution under a valid information under

said law, viz:

Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him. (Underscoring ours.)

Thus, while the present Sandiganbayan ruling did not include a penalty

of loss of all retirement benefits under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 on the

Petitioner, the said ruling is not yet final and executory but is still pending

for review before the Supreme Court.

It is beyond GSIS’s competence to presume what and how the Supreme

Court will ultimately decide. Among the possibilities are: (a) acquittal of the

Petitioner; (b) upholding of the Sandiganbayan judgment; and (c) affirmance

of the conviction with the additional penalty of loss of retirement benefits

pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019. In view of the indeterminacy, GSIS

has to await the final ruling of the Supreme Court on Petitioner’s criminal

case.

Petitioner also asserts that GSIS has the authority only to suspend the

release of retirement benefits of government employees in relation to

The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

7

pending administrative cases, not in relation to pending criminal cases. The

assertion has no legal foundation.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.

10154, as originally crafted, provides the following definition of a pending

case, to wit:

Section 4. Definition of Terms. For purposes of these Rules, the following terms shall mean:

xxx

c. Pending case – a pending administrative case shallbe construed as such when the disciplining authority has issued a formal charge or a notice of charge/s to the respondent. (Emphasis ours.)

Subsequently, however, CSC Resolution No. 1302242 amended

certain portions of the IRR of RA No. 10154, as follows:

Section 1. Sections 4, 7 and 8 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10154 are amended as follows:

1. Section 4, Rule II of the IRR of R.A. No. 10154 is herebyamended to read as follows:

Section 4. Definition of Terms. For the purposes of these Rules, the following terms shall mean:

x x x

c. Pecuniary liability – a monetary obligation to compensate anylost, damaged or destroyed property resulting from fault or neglect, or from improper application of funds that results from the one’s failure to properly discharge assigned responsibilities.

It is understood that the retirement benefits of the retiring employee, as herein defined, and which do not constitute as pecuniary liability per se, may be withheld but only as a possible source of money to comply with the decision in a pending case where the possible penalty to be imposed is dismissal from the service.

d. Pending case – shall refer to either a criminal or anadministrative disciplinary case. An administrative disciplinary case is considered pending when the disciplining authority has issued a formal charge or a notice of charge/s to the respondent, while a criminal case shall be considered pending from the time an Information or Complaint is filed in Court. (Emphasis ours.)

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

8

Section 4 (c), as amended, mentions the phrase, “pending case”, as a

reason for withholding the retirement benefits of a retiring employee as a

possible source of money to comply with the decision in a pending case. In

Section 4(d), it was clarified that the phrase “pending case” refers to both

criminal and administrative cases.

R.A. No. 10154 expressly authorizes the CSC to issue the appropriate

rules and regulations for the proper implementation of the said law.

Specifically, Section 6 of R.A. No. 10154 provides to wit:

Section 6. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Civil Service Commission (CSC), after consultation and coordination with the government agencies and/or instrumentalities affected by this Act, including, but not limited to, the GSIS, the Pag-IBIG Fund, the Constitutional Commissions, the Legislature and the Judiciary as well as the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), shall promulgate and issue the appropriate rules and regulations for the proper implementation of this Act.

Such rules and regulations shall include provisions prescribing uniform periods for the advance filing of retirement applications in the different agencies concerned, as well as standard periods for the processing and release of claims for retirement benefits, gratuities and allowances which will pinpoint responsibility in case of delay in the release thereof.

In Landbank of the Philippines vs. American Rubber

Corporation2, the Supreme Court held that: “It is elementary that rules and

regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they

are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and they are entitled to

respect. Administrative issuances partake of the nature of statute and have

in their favor a presumption of legality…. Unless an administrative order is

declared invalid, courts (or the Commission) have no option but to apply the

same.”

2 G.R. No. 188046, 24 July 2013.

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

9

Thus, CSC Resolution No. 13-00237 enjoys the presumption of validity

and is entitled to obedience and respect by GSIS, in the absence of any

judicial ruling declaring the same to be void. As aptly observed by the CoC,

it is GSIS’s ministerial duty to comply with the rules issued by duly

constituted authorities, including the CSC, which is the constitutionally

mandated central personnel agency of the government.

Lastly, Petitioner argues that his administrative case which allegedly

arose from the same set of facts as his criminal case was already dismissed.

He surmises that since administrative cases only require substantial

evidence, with more reason that the court cannot convict him in a criminal

case where a higher quantum of proof of proof beyond reasonable doubt is

needed.

We are not convinced. One’s absolution from a criminal charge is not

a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa. These are mutually

exclusive of each other. On this point is the High Court’s ruling in the case of

Jessie D. Flores vs. People of the Philippines3 to wit:

It is hornbook doctrine in administrative law that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same acts or omissions. Thus, an absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution, or vice versa. Given the differences in the quantum of evidence required, the procedures actually observed, the sanctions imposed, as well as the objective of the two proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other. Hence, the exoneration in the administrative case is not a bar to a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts which were the subject of the administrative complaint or vice versa.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The CoC

Decision dated 14 January 2021 is AFFIRMED. The Petitioner’s claim for the

3 G.R. No. 222861, 21 April 2018.

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

10

RELEASE of his RETIREMENT BENEFITS from GSIS is SUSPENDED

PENDING the resolution of his criminal case by the SUPREME COURT in

the case entitled, Arnold D. Navalez, Rey C. Chavez, Rosindo J. Almonte

and Alfonso E. Laid. et al. vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No.

219598).

SO ORDERED.

_____________________, Pasay City.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN ROLANDO L. MACASAET Chairman Vice Chairman

CARLO ANTONIO B. ALMIRANTE JOCELYN DE GUZMAN CABREZA Trustee Trustee

NINA RICCI YNARES-CHIONGBIAN ALAN R. LUGA Trustee Trustee

KAHAR H. MACASAYON WILFREDO C. MALDIA Trustee Trustee

ANTHONY B. SASIN Trustee

Copy furnished:

Atty. Jan Meryll M. Deiparine Counsel for Petitioner Pizarras Flores Olandesca and Associates Law Offices 20th Floor Security Bank Centre 6776 Ayala Avenue, Makati City

26 October 2021

2021

55

15 Nov 2021

11

Atty. Arvin H. Pajaron CoC Counsel Prosecution and Quasi-Judicial Cases Department Legal Services Group, 6th Floor, GSIS Pasay City

CERTIFICATION

I, CRISTINA V. ASTUDILLO, Attorney V at GSIS Legal Services Group, having

been assigned as Hearing Officer to draft the decision in GSIS Board of Trustees

Case No. 001-21, entitled “In the Matter of the Request for Payment of

Retirement Benefit Pending Appeal to the Supreme Court of Sandiganbayan

Decision, Rosindo J. Almonte, Petitioner,” hereby certify that the statement of

facts herein stated and being presented before this Board is accurate and true, based

on the records of the case, the pleadings and other documents submitted by the

parties.

This certification is issued this 26th of October 2021, in compliance Board

Resolution No. 198-A adopted on 18 September 2004.

Pasay City, Philippines.

CRISTINA V. ASTUDILLO Hearing Officer 20

2155

15 Nov 2021