gsis case

G.R. No. 162372 October 19, 2011GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS, !ERMOGENES ". CONCE#CION, $R., %INSTON &. GARCIA, REYNA'"O #. #A'MIERY, 'EOVIGI'"O #. ARRE''ANO, E'MER T. (AUTISTA, 'EONORA V. "E $ESUS, &U'GENCIO S. &ACTORAN, &'ORINO O. I(A)E*, AI"A C. NOCETE, AURORA #. MAT!AY, ENRI+UETA "ISUANCO, AMA'IO MA''ARI, 'OUR"ES #ATAG, RIC!AR" M. MARTINE*, ASUNCION C. SIN"AC, G'ORIA ". CAE"O, ROMEO C. +UI'ATAN, ES#ERAN*A &A''ORINA, 'O'ITA (ACANI, ARNU'&O MA"RIAGA, 'EOCA"IA S. &A$AR"O, (ENIGNO (U'AONG, S!IR'EY ". &'ORENTINO, ,-. 'EA M. MEN"IO'A, Petitioners, vs.COMMISSION ON AU"IT (COA, AMORSONIA (. ESCAR"A, MA. CRISTINA ". "IMAGI(A, ,-. REYNA'"O #. VENTURA, Respondents.D E C I S I O N'EONAR"O/"E CASTRO, J.:This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 6 in relation to Rule 6! of the "##$ Rules of Court to annul and set aside the Co%%ission on &udit's Decision Nos. ())*+)6( and ())+)) dated ,arch "-, ())* and .anuar/ ($, ()), respectivel/, for havin0 1een %ade without or in e2cess of 3urisdiction, or with 0rave a1use of discretion a%ountin0 to lac4 or e2cess of 3urisdiction.The 5overn%ent Service Insurance S/ste% 65SIS7 is 3oined 1/ its 8oard of Trustees and officials, na%el/9 Chair%an :er%o0enes D. Concepcion, .r.; . 5arcia 65arcia7; E2ecutive actoran, >lorino O. I1a@eA, and &ida C. Nocete; Senior a3ardo, 8eni0no 8ulaon0, Shirle/ D. >lorentino, and ?ea ,. ,endiola, to0ether with all other officials and e%plo/ees held lia1le 1/ the Co%%ission on &udit 6CO&7 as petitioners in this case."The respondents in this petition are9 the CO&; its Director of Corporate &udit Office 6C&O7 I, &%orsonia 8. Escarda 6Escarda7, who rendered C&O I Decision No. ())(+))# dated ,a/ ($, ())(; the for%er Corporate &uditor of 5SIS, ,a. Cristina D. Di%a0i1a 6Di%a0i1a7, who issued the Notices of Disallowance su13ect of C&O I Decision No. ())(+))#; and the incu%1ent 5SIS Corporate &uditor Re/naldo P. or positions S5 ($ up" + () /rs 2 ".! " + () /rs 2 ".(!(" + *) /rs 2 (.) (" + *) /rs 2 ".$!*" /rs a1ove 2 (.! *" /rs a1ove 2 (.))GGSu13ect to review. &pplica1le onl/ to present salar/ structure.I< I,P?E,ENTIN5 PO?ICIES9". To 1e entitled to the plan, the e%plo/ee %ust 1e Bualified to retire with ! /ear lu%p su% under R& 66) or R& -(#" or hadpreviousl/ retired under applica1le retire%ent laws(. The lo/alt/ incentive 1enefit shall 1e co%puted 1ased on 1oth total 0overn%ent service and hi0hest %onthl/ salar/I1enefit received fro% 5SIS*. E%plo/ees with pendin0 ad%inistrative andIor cri%inal case %a/ appl/ 1ut processin0 and pa/%ent of lo/alt/ incentive shall 1e held in a1e/ance until final decision on their cases. 5SIS lo/alt/ incentive plan can onl/ 1e availed once and e%plo/ees who retired under 5ERSIP'#$ are no lon0er Bualified!. There shall 1e no refund of retire%ent pre%iu%s in all cases6. &pplication is su13ect to approval 1/ the President and 5eneral ,ana0erPROCEDHRE9". E%plo/ees availin0 of the E%plo/ee ?o/alt/ Incentive Plan %ust file hisIher application under R& 66)

or R& -(#" for thefive 6!7 /ear lu%p su%, with :RS for indorse%ent to SI5(. Option ( under R& -(#" %a/ 1e allowed 1ut the lo/alt/ incentive shall 1e co%puted 1ased on ! /ear lu%p su%*. The lo/alt/ incentive shall onl/ 1e paid after deductin0 the lu%p su% under R& 66), R& #"),! PD ""66 or R& -(#" or retire%ent 1enefit previousl/ received plus cash pa/%ent. 5overn%ent service of previousl/ retired e%plo/ees shall 1e considered in co%putin0 the lo/alt/ incentive!. >or e2pedienc/, the processin0 of the plan shall 1e done 1/ the Social Insurance 5roupE>>ECTIP was contrar/ tolaw. :owever, the 5SIS ?e0al Services 5roup opined that the 5SIS 8oard was le0all/ authoriAed to adopt the plan since Section (-617 of Co%%onwealth &ct No. "-6 as a%ended 1/ Repu1lic &ct No. #6- has 1een repealed 1/ Sections * and "6n7 of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#".-On .anuar/ "6, ())", 8oard Resolution No. 6# was approved, wherein E?IP was rena%ed 5SIS Retire%entI>inancial Plan 6R>P7 to confor% strictl/ to the wordin0s of Section "6n7 of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#".Hpon 5arcia's assu%ption of office as President and 5eneral ,ana0er, Di%a0i1a reBuested to a0ain review the 5SIS R>P. This was denied 1/ 5arcia.") 8elievin0 that the 5SIS R>P was D%orall/ indefensi1le,D"" Di%a0i1a sou0ht the assistance of CO& Din deter%inin0 the le0alit/ andIor %oralit/ of the said Plan in so far as it has Jadopted the 1est features of the two retire%ent sche%es, the !+/ear lu%p su% pa/%ent under KRepu1lic &ct No.L "6"6 and the %onthl/ pension of KRepu1lic &ct No.L 66) 1ased on the credita1le service co%puted at "!)M.'D"(On &u0ust $, ())", CO&'s 5eneral Counsel Santos ,. &lBuiAalas 6&lBuiAalas7 issued a ,e%orandu% to CO& Co%%issioner Raul C. >lores re0ardin0 the 5SIS R>P. &lBuiAalas opined that the 5SIS R>P is a supple%entar/ retire%ent plan, which is prohi1ited under Repu1lic &ct No. #6-, or the DTeves Retire%ent ?aw.D :e also said that since there is no provision in the new Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" e2pressl/ repealin0 the Teves Retire%ent ?aw, the two laws %ust 1e har%oniAed a1sent an irreconcila1le inconsistenc/. &lBuiAalas pronounced that 8oard Resolution Nos. *6) and 6 are null and void for 1ein0 violative of Section (-617 of Co%%onwealth &ct No. "-6 as a%ended 1/ Repu1lic &ct No. #6-, which 1ars the creation of a supple%ental retire%ent sche%e; and Section "6n7 of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#", which spea4s of an earl/ retire%ent plan or financial assistance."*On &u0ust ", ())"," Co%%issioner >lores forwarded this ,e%orandu% to Di%a0i1a, who in turn forwarded it to 5arcia on &u0ust (*, ())". Di%a0i1a, in her letter attached to &lBuiAalas's ,e%orandu%, added that for lac4 of le0al 1asis, her office was disallowin0 in audit theportion of retire%ent 1enefits 0ranted under the 5SIS R>P, or the e2cess of the 1enefits due the retirees. She also said that 5SIS could avail of the appeal process provided for under Sections - to !) of Presidential Decree No. "! and Section *$." of the ,anual on Certificate of Settle%ent and 8alances."!On &u0ust ($, ())", 5arcia responded"6to Di%a0i1a, ta4in0 e2ception to the notice of disallowance for 1ein0 Dhi0hl/ irre0ular and precipitateD as it was 1ased on a %ere opinion of CO&'s counsel who had no authorit/ to declare the resolution of the 5SIS 8oard of Trustees as null and void. ,oreover, 5arcia asseverated that CO& had neither power nor authorit/ to declare as null and void certain resolutions approved 1/ the 8oard of 5overn%ent Corporations, as the power to do so was e2clusivel/ lod0ed 1efore the courts. :e also ar0ued that the notice of disallowance was pre%ature, and was tanta%ount to a pre+audit activit/, as it should refer onl/ to a particular or specific dis1urse%ent of pu1lic funds and not a0ainst a 0eneral activit/ or transaction. 5arcia averred that the 5SIS R>P was part and parcel of the co%pensation pac4a0e that 5SIS %a/ provide for its personnel, 1/ virtue of the powers 0ranted to its 8oard of Trustees underSection "6%7 and 6n7 of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#". 5arcia said that the appeal process would co%%ence onl/ upon 5SIS's receipt of the particulars of the disallowances."$ >inall/, 5arcia reBuested Di%a0i1a to withdraw the notices of disallowance Din the interest of industrial peace in the 5SIS.D"-=ithout respondin0 to 5arcia's &u0ust ($, ())" ,e%orandu%, Di%a0i1a issued the followin0 Notices of Disallowance on the 0rounds that9Pursuant to le0al opinion of the 5eneral Counsel dated &u0ust $, ())", 8oard Resolution No. *6) dated Nov. (", ())) as a%ended 1/ No.6 dated .an. "6, ())" approvin0 the E%plo/ees ?o/alt/ Incentive Plan 6E?IP7 is null and void for 1ein0 directl/ in conflict with Section (-617of C& No. "-6 as a%ended 1/ R& #6- which 1ars the creation of supple%ental retire%ent sche%e and of Section " 6n7 of R& -(#" whichspea4s of an earl/ retire%ent plan or financial assistance."#Notices of Disallowance dated Septe%1er "#, ())"()Notice ofDisallowanceNo.IPeriodcovered9Pa/ee&%ountDisallowedPersons ?ia1le98oard of Trustees;?ourdes Pata0 6S. 5arciaEsperanAa >allorina?ea ,. ,endiolaShirle/ >lorentino())"+)6+"(I,a/ ())"inall/, Escarda disa0reed with 5SIS's assertion that the Teves Retire%ent ?aw had 1een %odified or repealed as the repealin0 clause in Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" is a 0eneral repealin0 clause, whichis frowned upon and is 0enerall/ not effective to repeal a specific law li4e the Teves Retire%ent ?aw.*(Hndaunted, the petitioners filed 1efore the CO& a Petition for Review** of C&O I's decision, raisin0 the e2act sa%e issues it raised in its ,e%orandu% of &ppeal dated >e1ruar/ ", ())(, to wit9I=hether or not petitionersIappellants 5SIS and 5SIS 8oard of Trustees have the power and authorit/ to desi0n and adopt the Buestioned 5SIS Retire%ent >inancial Plan.II=hether or not petitionersIappellant 5SIS officials who are %erel/ i%ple%entin0 the 5SIS &ct of "##$ and dul/ adopted 8oard Resolutions %ust 1e held responsi1le and accounta1le for the i%ple%entation of the 5SIS Retire%ent >inancial Plan.III=hether or not the adoption of the 5SIS Retire%ent >inancial Plan violated Section (- 617 of C& No. "-6 as a%ended 1/ Repu1lic &ct No. #6-, and Section "6n7 of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#", otherwise 4nown as the 5SIS &ct of "##$.Iinancial Plan is lawful, and the C&O I Decision No. ())(+))# and the Notices of Disallowance issued 1/ 5SIS Corporate &uditor Di%a0i1a are proper.*On ,arch "-, ())*, CO& issued Decision No. ())*+)6(,*! wherein the issue was narrowed down to Dwhether or not the 5SIS 8oard can reward the%selves with unusuall/ lar0e 1enefits in the face of an unusuall/ lar0e actuarial deficit which will result in the denial of 1enefits offuture retirees in other 0overn%ent a0encies for who% the fund is principall/ intended.D*6CO& Aeroed in on the fact that to 1e entitled to the 5SIS R>P, the e%plo/ee D%ust 1e Bualified to retire with !+/ear lu%p su% under R.&. No. 66) or R.&. No. -(#" or K%ust haveL previousl/ retired under the applica1le retire%ent laws.D*$ The/ affir%ed Escarda's rulin0 and contended that what the Dstill validD*- Teves Retire%ent ?aw per%its is the creation of an earl/ retire%ent or financial assistance plan, and the a1ove reBuire%ent i%posed under the 5SIS R>P does not appl/ to either plans. CO& added9Hn%ista4a1l/, the Plan 1ein0 a supple%entar/ pensionIretire%ent plan, it contravenes the Teves law. Not even the rena%in0 of KtheL E%plo/ees ?o/alt/ Incentive Plan 6E?IP7 to Retire%ent >inancial Plan 6R>P7, purportedl/ to confor% with the wordin0 of the law, could conceal its true nature or character as a supple%entar/ pensionIretire%ent plan which incorporates the 1est features of R.&. Nos. 66) and -(#", creatin0 in effect a third retire%ent plan for 5SIS personnel onl/. This is all the %ore %ade %anifest 1/ the fact that even 8oard %e%1ers who are not Bualified at all to retire under an/ e2istin0 retire%ent laws could retire under the R>P. Stri4in0l/, 1/ pro%ul0atin0 another re0ular retire%ent sche%e, the 5SIS 8oard enlar0ed the field of its authorit/ and re0ulation as provided in the statute it is supposed to ad%inister.*#CO& said that the power of 5SIS in appl/in0 the law %ust not 1e a1used. CO& averred that 5SIS was found to 1e deficient actuariall/ 1/ >ifteen 8illion Pesos, and for it to reward its e%plo/ees, who were alread/ en3o/in0 salaries hi0her than their counterparts in other 0overn%ent a0encies, %eant that it would have to dip into its principal fund to the pre3udice of its %e%1ers, who were the ver/ raison d'etrefor its esta1lish%ent.)&ddressin0 petitioners' clai% of discri%ination, CO& said that each of the 0overn%ent a0encies that had adopted its own retire%ent plans did so pursuant to a valid law and under factual circu%stances that were not present in the case of 5SIS. CO& also affir%ed the lia1ilit/ of the petitioners who were held accounta1le under the disallowances as the/ had failed to e2ercise the dili0ence of a 0ood father of a fa%il/ in the perfor%ance of their functions." >inall/, CO& averred that while its 0eneral counsel's opinion 1oosted its position, such was not the 1asis of the disallowance.(The petitioners sou0ht reconsideration* of this decision and even as4ed to 1e heard in oral ar0u%ents,

1ut CO&, in its Decision No. ())+)) dated .anuar/ ($, ()),! denied 1oth %otions and affir%ed its Decision No. ())*+)6( dated ,arch "-, ())* with finalit/.The petitioners are now 1efore us, as4in0 us to nullif/ CO&'s ,arch "-, ())* and .anuar/ ($, ()) decisions, on the 0round that the/ were%ade with 0rave a1use of discretion a%ountin0 to lac4 or e2cess of 3urisdiction.6The petitioners posit the followin0 ar0u%ents to support their cause9RESPONDENTS &CTED =IT:OHT OR IN EOCESS O> .HRISDICTION, OR =IT: 5R& DISCRETION &,OHNTIN5 TO ?&CP OR IN EOCESS O> .HRISDICTION, =:EN IN T:E >O??O=IN5 ,&NNER9IRespondents sou0ht to interpret clear provisions of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#", otherwise 4nown as the 5SIS &ct of "##$, and declare null and void dul/ adopted resolutions of petitioner 5SIS which has the power and authorit/ to desi0n and adopt the Buestioned 5SIS Retire%ent >inancial Plan 6R>P7.IIRespondents ruled that petitioners 5SIS officials who are %erel/ i%ple%entin0 the 5SIS &ct of "##$ and dul/ adopted 8oard Resolutions could 1e held responsi1le and accounta1le for the i%ple%entation of the 5SIS Retire%ent >inancial Plan 6R>P7.IIIRespondents held that the adoption of the 5SIS Retire%ent >inancial Plan 6R>P7 violated Section (- 617 of C& No. "-6, as a%ended 1/ Repu1lic &ct No. #6-, and Section "6n7 of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#", otherwise 4nown as the 5SIS &ct of "##$.Iinancial Plan 6R>P7, and erroneousl/ affir%ed the Notices of Disallowance issued 1/ then 5SIS Corporate &uditor Di%a0i1a.P,D in li0ht of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" or the 5SIS &ct of "##$, and Co%%onwealth &ct No. "-6 or the 5overn%ent Service Insurance &ct as a%ended 1/ Repu1lic &ct No. #6- 6the Teves Retire%ent ?aw7.8elow are the pertinent provisions of the fore0oin0 laws9Repu1lic &ct No. -(#"SECTION ". Powers and >unctions of the 5SIS. Q The 5SIS shall e2ercise the followin0 powers and functions92 2 2 26n7 to desi0n and adopt an Earl/ Retire%ent Incentive Plan 6ERIP7 andIor financial assistance for the purpose of retire%ent for its own personnel; 2 2 2.Co%%onwealth &ct No. "-6 as a%ended 1/ the Teves Retire%ent ?aw9SEC. (-. ,iscellaneous Provisions R 2 2 2617 :ereafter no insurance or retire%ent plan for officers or e%plo/ees shall 1e created 1/ an/ e%plo/er. &ll supple%entar/ retire%ent or pension plans heretofore in force in an/ 0overn%ent office, a0enc/, or instru%entalit/ or corporation owned or controlled 1/ the 0overn%ent, are here1/ declared inoperative or a1olished. 2 2 2. -Repu1lic &ct No. #6- or theTeves Retire%ent ?awIs Still 5ood ?awThe petitioners insist that under Section * of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#", which provides that Dall laws or an/ law or parts of law specificall/ inconsistent herewith are here1/ repealed or %odified accordin0l/,D all provisions of the Teves Retire%ent ?aw that are inconsistent with Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" are dee%ed repealed or %odified.#=e do not su1scri1e to petitioner's interpretation of this law. This is 1ecause, unless the intention to revo4e is clear and %anifest, the a1ro0ation or repeal of a law cannot 1e assu%ed.!) The repealin0 clause contained in Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" is not an e2press repealin0 clause 1ecause it fails to identif/ or desi0nate the statutes that are intended to 1e repealed. It is actuall/ a clause, which predicated the intended repeal upon the condition that a su1stantial conflict %ust 1e found in e2istin0 and prior laws.!"Since Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" %ade no e2press repeal or a1ro0ation of the provisions of Co%%onwealth &ct No. "-6 as a%ended 1/ the Teves Retire%ent ?aw, the reliance of the petitioners on its 0eneral repealin0 clause is erroneous. The failure to add a specific repealin0 clause in Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" indicates that the intent was not to repeal an/ e2istin0 law, unless an irreconcila1le inconsistenc/ and repu0nanc/ e2ists in the ter%s of the new and old laws.!(=e are li4ewise not convinced 1/ petitioners' clai% of repeal 1/ i%plication. It is a well+settled rule that to 1rin0 a1out an i%plied repeal, the two laws %ust 1e a1solutel/ inco%pati1le and clearl/ repu0nant that the later law cannot e2ist without nullif/in0 the prior law.!* &s this Courtheld in Reca@a, .r. v. Court of &ppeals!9Repeal of laws should 1e %ade clear and e2pressed. Repeals 1/ i%plication are not favored as laws are presu%ed to 1e passed with deli1eration and full 4nowled0e of all laws e2istin0 on the su13ect. Such repeals are not favored for a law cannot 1e dee%ed repealed unless it is clearl/ %anifest that the le0islature so intended it. 2 2 2.!!This Court sees no inco%pati1ilit/ 1etween the two laws 1ein0 discussed here. In reconcilin0 Section "6n7 of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" with the Teves Retire%ent ?aw, we are 0uided 1/ this Court's pronounce%ent in Philippine International Tradin0 Corporation v. Co%%ission on &udit!69In reconcilin0 Section 6 of E2ecutive Order No. $!6 with Section (-, Su1section 617 of Co%%onwealth &ct No. "-6, as a%ended, upper%ost in the %ind of the Court is the fact that the 1est %ethod of interpretation is that which %a4es laws consistent with other laws which are to 1e har%oniAed rather than havin0 one considered repealed in favor of the other. Ti%e and a0ain, it has 1een held that ever/ statute %ust 1e so interpreted and 1rou0ht in accord with other laws as to for% a unifor% s/ste% of 3urisprudence Q interpretere et concordare le0i1us est opti%us interpretendi. Thus, if diverse statutes relate to the sa%e thin0, the/ ou0ht to 1e ta4en into consideration in construin0 an/ one of the%, as it is an esta1lished rule of law that all acts in pari %ateria are to 1e ta4en to0ether, as if the/ were one law. 22 2.!$=hile Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" spea4s of an earl/ retire%ent incentive plan or financial assistance for the 5SIS e%plo/ees, Co%%onwealth &ct No. "-6 as a%ended 1/ the Teves Retire%ent ?aw tal4s a1out insurance or retire%ent plans other than our e2istin0 retire%ent laws. In other words, what the Teves Retire%ent ?aw conte%plates and prohi1its are separate retire%ent or insurance plans. In fact, the ver/ sa%e provision declared inoperative or a1olished all supple%entar/ retire%ent or pension plans.The 5SIS Retire%entI>inancialPlan is Null and P. Its ver/ o13ective, DKtLo %otivate and reward e%plo/ees for %eritorious, faithful, and satisfactor/ service,D6) contradicts the nature of an earl/ retire%ent incentive plan, or a financial assistance plan, which involves a su1stantial a%ount that is 0iven to %otivate e%plo/ees to retire earl/. Instead, it falls e2actl/ within the purpose of a retire%ent 1enefit, which is a for% of reward for an e%plo/ee's lo/alt/ and len0th/ service,6" in order to help hi% or her en3o/ the re%ainin0 /ears of his life.>urther%ore, to 1e a1le to appl/ for the 5SIS R>P, one %ust 1e Bualified to retire under Repu1lic &ct No. 66) or Repu1lic &ct No. -(#", or %ust have previousl/ retired under our e2istin0 retire%ent laws. This onl/ %eans that the e%plo/ees covered 1/ the 5SIS R>P were those who were alread/ eli0i1le to retire or had alread/ retired. Certainl/, this is not included in the scope of Dan earl/ retire%ent incentive plan or financial assistance for the purpose of retire%ent.DThe fact that 5SIS chan0ed the na%e fro% DE%plo/ees ?o/alt/ Incentive PlanD to DRetire%entI>inancial PlanD does not chan0e its essential nature. & perusal of the plan shows that its purpose is not to encoura0e 5SIS's e%plo/ees to retire 1efore their retire%ent a0e, 1ut to au0%ent the retire%ent 1enefits the/ would receive under our present laws. 6( =ithout a dou1t, the 5SIS R>P is a supple%entar/ retire%ent plan, which is prohi1ited 1/ the Teves Retire%ent ?aw.Conte v. Co%%ission on &udit6* sBuarel/ applies in this case. In that case, the Social Securit/ S/ste% 6SSS7 issued Resolution No. !6, which provided financial incentive and induce%ent to SSS e%plo/ees who were Bualified to retire, to avail of retire%ent 1enefits under Repu1lic &ct No. 66), as a%ended 6which 5SIS would have to pa/7, rather than the retire%ent 1enefits under Repu1lic &ct No. "6"6, as a%ended 6which SSS would have to pa/7. Hnder SSS Resolution No. !6, those who retire under Repu1lic &ct No. 66) would 1e 0iven a Dfinancial assistanceD eBuivalent in a%ount to the difference 1etween what a retiree would have received under Repu1lic &ct No. "6"6, lesswhat he was entitled to under Repu1lic &ct No. 66). CO& disallowed in audit all clai%s for financial assistance under SSS Resolution No. !6 for 1ein0 si%ilar to those separate retire%ent plans or incentiveIseparation pa/ plans adopted 1/ other 0overn%ent corporate a0encies, which resulted in the increase of 1enefits 1e/ond what was allowed under e2istin0 retire%ent laws. This Court sustained CO&'s disallowance and held that SSS Resolution No. !6 constituted a supple%entar/ retire%ent plan proscri1ed 1/ Section (-617 of Co%%onwealth &ct No. "-6, as a%ended 1/ Repu1lic &ct No. #6-. 6The petitioners ar0ue that Conte finds no application in this case, since SSS had no authorit/ under its charter to adopt such a resolution, unli4e the 5SIS, which was cloa4ed with authorit/ to issue the Buestioned resolutions. >urther%ore, petitioners ar0ue that Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" 1eca%e effective in "##$, which was after this Court had alread/ decided the Conte case.=e find no %erit in the petitioners' ar0u%ents. The laws have not chan0ed, and the doctrine in Conte has not 1een overturned or a1andoned. The fact that Repu1lic &ct No. -(#" was approved and enacted after Conte is of no %o%ent, as what was interpreted in Conte was the provision in the Teves Retire%ent ?aw in issue here. ,oreover, we have alread/ discussed a1ove how such provision has neither 1een repealed nor %odified 1/ Section "6n7 of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#". Thus, it is 3ust fittin0 that we find 0uidance in the application and interpretation of Section (-617 of Co%%onwealth &ct No. "-6, as a%ended 1/ Repu1lic &ct No. #6-, fro% the Conte case.&s we have held in that case9Section (-617 Kof C.&. No. "-6L as a%ended 1/ R.&. No. #6- in no uncertain ter%s 1ars the creation of an/ insurance or retire%ent plan R other than the 5SIS R for 0overn%ent officers and e%plo/ees, in order to prevent the undue and ineBuitous proliferation of such plans. 2 2 2.6!The petitioners asseverate that %an/ laws such as Repu1lic &ct Nos. -(#", ""6", -(-(, 66-*, and $6", were validl/ enacted after the Teves Retire%ent ?aw; thus, the evil that it see4s to avoid is the proliferation of those retire%ent plans that are not so authoriAed 1/ law.66 The petitioners even 0o so far as co%parin0 the%selves to other 0overn%ent a0encies, which have adopted their own retire%ent sche%es at one ti%e or another such as the Develop%ent 8an4 of the Philippines, the Securities and E2chan0e Co%%ission, the National Power Corporation, the CO&, the Court of &ppeals, and even this Court.6$The petitioners the%selves ad%it that those retire%ent sche%es were adopted as a DKone+ti%eL 0rant K1/L reason of reor0aniAationD6- pursuant to Repu1lic &ct No. 66-*6# or the Earl/ Retire%ent ?aw. &s for the additional 1enefits e2tended to retirin0 3usticesor co%%issioners, suffice it to sa/ that the/ were also 0iven pursuant to laws passed 1/ Con0ress. ,oreover, those retire%ent plans en3o/ the presu%ption of validit/ and re0ularit/.In star4 contrast, the 5SIS R>P was not created 1ecause of a valid co%pan/ reor0aniAation. Its purpose did not include the 0rantin0 of 1enefits for earl/ retire%ent. Neither did it provide 1enefits for either voluntar/ or involuntar/ separation fro% 5SIS. It was intended for e%plo/ees who were alread/ eli0i1le to retire under e2istin0 retire%ent laws. =hile the 5SIS %a/ have 1een clothed with authorit/ to adoptan earl/ retire%ent or financial assistance plan, such authorit/ was li%ited 1/ the ver/ law it was see4in0 to i%ple%ent.8orrowin0 this Court's words in the Conte case, Dit is 1e/ond cavil that Kthe 5SIS Retire%entI>inancial PlanL contravenes KSection (-617 of C.&. No. "-6 as a%ended 1/ R.&. No. #6- or the Teves Retire%ent ?awL, and is therefore invalid, void, and of no effect. To i0nore this andrule otherwise would 1e tanta%ount to per%ittin0 ever/ other 0overn%ent office or a0enc/ to put up its own supple%entar/ retire%ent 1enefit plan under the 0uise of such Jfinancial assistance.'D$)&nother co%pellin0 reason to nullif/ the 5SIS R>P is that it allows, and in fact %andates, the inclusion of the /ears in 0overn%ent service of previousl/ retired e%plo/ees, to wit9PROCEDHRE92 2 2 2. 5overn%ent service of previousl/ retired e%plo/ees shall 1e considered in co%putin0 the lo/alt/ incentive.$"In Santos v. Court of &ppeals,$( we affir%ed the Court of &ppeals and the Civil Service Co%%ission's rulin0 that for the purpose of co%putin0 or deter%inin0 Santos' separation pa/, his /ears of service in his previous 0overn%ent office should 1e e2cluded and his separation pa/ should 1e solel/ confined to his services in his new 0overn%ent position. =e 0ave the rationale for this as follows9Such would run counter to the polic/ of this Court a0ainst dou1le co%pensation for e2actl/ the sa%e services. ,ore i%portant, it would 1e in violation of the first para0raph of Section - of &rticle IO+8 of the Constitution, which proscri1es additional, dou1le, or indirect co%pensation. Said provision reads9No elective or appointive pu1lic officer or e%plo/ee shall receive additional, dou1le, or indirect co%pensation, unless specificall/ authoriAed1/ lawS .$*Our rulin0 therein is li4ewise applica1le in this case. To credit the /ears of service of 5SIS retirees in their previous 0overn%ent office into the co%putation of their retire%ent 1enefits under the 5SIS R>P, notwithstandin0 the fact that the/ had received or had 1een receivin0 the retire%ent 1enefits under the applica1le retire%ent law the/ retired in, would 1e to countenance dou1le co%pensation for e2actl/ the sa%e services.$To e%phasiAe CO&'s DdistasteD$! for the hu0e retire%ent 1enefits of 5SIS's 1oard %e%1ers, officers, and e%plo/ees, who are alread/ receivin0 si0nificantl/ hi0her salaries than their counterparts in other 0overn%ent a0encies, CO& illustrated the 0larin0 discrepanc/ 1etween what a 5SIS e%plo/ee would 0et under the 5SIS R>P, and what a %ere 5SIS %e%1er would 0et under applica1le retire%ent laws95SIS E,P?OEEE vs 5SIS ,E,8ER not covered 1/ K5SIS R>PL5SIS E,P?OEEE S&?&RE 5R&DE 5SIS ,E,8ER 5SIS ITS HNDER DI>>ERENT ,ODES O> RETIRE,ENTK5SIS E%plo/eeL K5SIS ,e%1erLK5SIS R>PL R& "6"6 R& 66) K5SIS R>PLR& "6"6 R& 66) #).#((*- 6$.$*$# 6.*6-#! C5S NI& 6$.$*$# 6.*6-#!"),)$",#(6.)) $,!)*,66!.-$ NONE 5& ",$)-,!!*.)! NONE*,"$6,*-).-) !E?S ",("),$).))!(,#*#.6- 8,P (),"$-.)NONE with refund NONE RRP with refund NONEGK5SIS R>PL less !E?S F >IN&NCI&? &SSIST&NCE plus ,P of P !(,#*#.6- after five /earsF P 6,-#!,!!.() >inancial &ssistance T ,onthl/ Pension after five /earsG C5S + Credita1le 5overn%ent ServiceG 5& + 5ratuit/ &%ount Pa/a1le 1/ E%plo/erG !E?S + >ive 6!7 Eear ?u%p Su% Pa/a1le 1/ 5SISG 8,P + 8asic ,onthl/ PensionG RRP + Refund of Retire%ent Pre%iu%s$6=ith the a1ove illustration, it can 1e readil/ seen and understood wh/ the Teves Retire%ent ?aw prohi1its the proliferation of additional retire%ent plans in our 0overn%ent offices. =hile it is true that a 1etter co%pensation pac4a0e will not onl/ attract %ore co%petent and capa1le individuals to wor4 in 5SIS, 1ut will also ensure that the/ re%ain lo/al and faithful therein, this has alread/ 1een addressed 1/ the 5SIS e%plo/ees' e2e%ption fro% Repu1lic &ct No. 6$- or the Salar/ StandardiAation ?aw 6SS?7, under Sec. *6d7 of Repu1lic &ct No. -(#". &s shown in the a1ove ta1les, the salar/ of a 5SIS e%plo/ee is %uch hi0her co%pared to his counterpart in another 0overn%ent a0enc/. This re%ains to 1e true even with the recent increase of the salaries in the SS?.The petitioners also Buestion CO&'s authorit/ to nullif/ the resolutions involved in this case. It %ust 1e re%e%1ered that none of the CO& decisions nullified the 8oard Resolutions adopted 1/ 5SIS's 8oard of Trustees. =hat the CO& decisions affir%ed were the disallowances %ade 1/ 5SIS's own Corporate &uditor, Di%a0i1a. It is irrelevant that CO&, in its decisions, touched upon issues not 1rou0ht 1efore it, or that it referred to its 0eneral counsel's opinion on the 5SIS R>P, as these were done onl/ to reinforce CO&'s position. The/ have no 1earin0 upon the wei0ht of CO&'s decisions, which are 1ased upon our e2istin0 laws and 3urisprudence.&s for Di%a0i1a, while she %a/ have relied on the opinion of CO&'s le0al counsel to support the disallowances she had %ade, it is worth/ to note that she had alread/ infor%ed 5arcia of the 5SIS R>P's ille0alit/ even 1efore she sou0ht CO&'s opinion on the %atter. ,oreover, neither Di%a0i1a's nor CO&'s confidence in the opinion of CO&'s 0eneral counsel could 1e faulted, as under Presidential Decree No. "!, or the 5overn%ent &uditin0 Code of the Philippines, one of the responsi1ilities of CO&'s le0al office is to interpret pertinent laws and auditin0 rules and re0ulations, to wit9SECTION "". The ?e0al Office. RThe ?e0al Office shall 1e char0ed with the followin0 responsi1ilities96"7 Perfor% advisor/ and consultative functions and render le0al services with respect to the perfor%ance of the functions of the Co%%ission and the interpretation of pertinent laws and auditin0 rules and re0ulations; 2 2 2.In view of the a1ove, we can hardl/ i%pute 0rave a1use of discretion a%ountin0 to lac4 or e2cess of 3urisdiction on the part of respondents CO&, Escarda, and Di%a0i1a, for disallowin0 in audit the portion of retire%ent 1enefits in e2cess of what is allowed under our e2istin0 retire%ent laws. On the contrar/, the/ acted with caution, dili0ence, and vi0ilance in the e2ercise of their duties, especiall/ since what was involved were hu0e a%ounts of %one/ i%1ued with pu1lic interest, since 5SIS's funds co%e fro% the contri1utions of its %e%1ers. Thus, 5SIS's 1usiness is to 4eep in trust the %one/ 1elon0in0 to its %e%1ers,$$ who are not li%ited to its own e%plo/ees.The Pa/ees are ?ia1le for theReturn of the Disallowed 8enefitsHnder the 5SIS R>PThe petitioners clai% that 5SIS's 8oard of Trustees cannot 1e held lia1le as the/ were actin0 pursuant to a valid law when the/ adopted the5SIS R>P. The petitioners also ar0ue that the i%ple%entation of the 5SIS R>P was %erel/ %inisterial, thus the 5SIS officers held accounta1le under the Notices of Disallowance should not 1e held responsi1le and accounta1le for the allocation and release of the 1enefits under the 5SIS R>P.This Court a0rees that onl/ the pa/ees should 1e held lia1le for the return of the disallowed a%ounts under the 5SIS R>P.&lthou0h it is true that as earl/ as Dece%1er ())),$- Di%a0i1a alread/ Buestioned the le0alit/ of the 5SIS R>P, it was onl/ in &u0ust ())" when 5SIS received CO&'s opinion on the %atter. ,oreover, CO& first decided the issue onl/ in ())(.=hile the 8oard of Trustees 1elieved the/ had the authorit/ and power to adopt the 5SIS R>P, the officers on the other hand 1elieved that the/ were i%ple%entin0 a valid resolution. &s we said in 8uscaino v. Co%%ission on &udit,$# the resolution of the 8oard of Trustees was sufficient 1asis for the dis1urse%ent, and it is 1e/ond these officers' co%petence to pass upon the validit/ of such 1oard resolutions.-)On account of the 5SIS R>P's dou1tful validit/, the petitioners should have e2ercised prudence and held in a1e/ance the dis1urse%ent of the portion of retire%ent 1enefits under the 5SIS R>P until the issue of its le0alit/ had 1een resolved.:owever, the 8oard of Trustees and the officers held accounta1le under the Notices of Disallowance should not 1e held lia1le as the/ are entitled to the presu%ption of havin0 e2ercised their functions with re0ularit/ and in 0ood faith.=:ERE>ORE, the petition is P&RTI&??E 5R&NTED. The assailed Decisions of the Co%%ission on &udit Nos. ())*+)6( and ())+)) dated ,arch "-, ())* and .anuar/ ($, ()), are &>>IR,ED with the ,ODI>IC&TION that onl/ the pa/ees of the dis1urse%ents %ade under the 5SIS R>P in the Notices of Disallowance are lia1le for such dis1urse%ents. 8oard Resolution Nos. *(6, *6), and 6 are declared I??E5&?, NO E>>ECT.SO ORDERED.