GSI S

REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINASPASEGURUHAN NG MGA NAGLILINGKOD SA PAMAHALAAN

(GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM)Financial Center, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City 1308

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

In the Matter of the Appeal fromthe Committee on ClaimsResolution denying Petitioner'sPetition for Release of hlsRetirement Benefits,

AMADO M. SOLAMO,Petitioner.

BOARD CASE No. OOl-13

x

DECISTON

For our decision is the Petition filed on 12 December 2012,

seeking to reverse and set aside Resolution No. O7-20L2 of the

Committee on Claims dated 20 March 2Ol2 (copy received by

Petitioner on 23 October 2012), affirming Government Service

Insurance System (GSIS) - Davao Regional Office's disapproval of

petitioner Amado M. Solamo's application for release of retirement

benefits.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner Amado M. Solamo, seryed as Labor Arbiter of the

Department of Labor and Employment from 1986 until his

dismissal in 20061. His dismissal precipitated from the 31July 2006

Order of the Office of the Ombudsman directing the Secretary of

the Department of Labor and Employment to implement its

1 COC's Answer dated 5 March 2013.

PaEt 2

IN rHE MATTER oF: ^prear

rrom rhe conmittee on cr,il* nesorution *" r-r3f,lfrfiiii,fl,i;"9'1'-"Peiilio. for Retircmeni Be..fils. ANIADO M. SOLAlrtrO' letitionet

Decision dated 18 October 2005 in OMB-M-A-04-21.6-1, finding

petitioner, guilty of the administrative offenses of grave

misconduct and dishonesty, iz:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Officefinds substantial evidence to hold respondent AmadoMarquez Solamo guilty of the Administrative offense ofgrave misconduct and dishonesty and is herebyimposed the penalty of dismissal from service inaccordance with Section 52, A (1) (3) of RuIe IV(Penalties) of the Uniform Rules on AdministrativeCases in the Civil Service which was promulgatedpursuant to CSC Resolution No. 991936.

SO DECIDED.,

Petitioner appealed the 18 October 2005 Decision of the

Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-M-A-04-21,6-l before the Court of

Appeals (CA) via Petition for Review (CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN)

and its 3i July 2006 Ordervia Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65

(cA-G.R. SP NO. 01363-MIN).3

While the administrative case was pending before the Court

of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision on 28 April

2011 in Crim. Case No. 28258 finding petitioner guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct Bribery under the second

paragraph of Article 210 of. the Revised Penal Code.a

On 13 May 2011, the Court of Appeals in its consolidated

Decision in CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN and CA-G.R. SP NO.

2 As quoted in the CA Consolidated Decision in CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN andCA-G.R. SP NO. 01363-MIN, dated May 13, 2011.3 CA Consolidated Decision in CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN and CA-G.R. SP NO.01363-MIN, dated May 13, 2O1l4 Supra, Note 1.

htgc l

GSIS Case No. OO1-13IN 'l.tlE MAfTER OF: App$l tru lhe Commiflee on Clainrs Resolurion No. 07-2012 detryins P€titioner's

P.titiotr forR.tircme.i tlctrcfit.. AMADO M SOLAMo' Petitloner

01363-MIN affirmed the Ombudsman's Decision dated LB October

2005 and Order dated 31 July 2006. In a Resolution dated 27

October 2011, Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied

by the Court ofAppeals.

On 28 September 2011 and pending resolution of his

application for probation before the Sandiganbayan, Petitioner

filed his application for retirement benefits with the GSIS Davao

Regional Office.5

On 4 October 2011, the GSIS Davao Regional Office

disapproved petitioner's retirement claim on the basis of the

Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 2B April 2011 finding petitioner

guilty of Direct Bribery under Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code

(RPC) and it became final upon petitioner's application for

probation. It explained further that under Sec.13 of R.A. 3019, loss

of retirement or gratuity benefits follows upon conviction by final

judgment of the accused for the offenses punishable under R.A.

3019 or Title 7 of the RPC. Thus, petitioner's application for

retirement benefits was disapproved.6 Petitioner received the letter

disapproving his retirement benefits on 20 October 201t.7

On 24 October 201,I, petitioner moved for the

reconsideration of the disapproval of his application for retirement

benefits. The GSIS Davao Regional Office elevated the matter to

the Committee on Claims (CoC).

s Petitioner's Memorandum dated April 70, 2013, p. 2.6 GSIS Letter dated 4 October 2011.7 Petitioner's Memorandum dated April 10,2013.

GSIS Case No, oo1-13IN THE MATTER Ol': AI|PtI froln llre Commiltee on Cl,imi Resoluiion No. 0?-2012 dcnvinB Petiliotreis

l'elition for Retircn.trt Bcnefits AMADO M. SOLANIO' Petitio,rcr

On 4 November 2011, the Sandiganbayan granted

Petitioner's application for probation in Crim Case No. 28258.

On 20 March 20L2, ttre CoC adopted Resolution No. 07-2012

affirming the GSIS Davao Regional Office's disapproval of

petitioner's application for retirement benefits, to wit:

Resolved, to affirm the disapproval by the DavaoRegional Office of Mr. Amado M. Solamo's retirementclaim on the ground that the judgment finding himguilty of direct bribery became final as a result of hisfiling an application for probation, and that underSection 13 of R.A. 3019, "loss of retirement or gratuitybenefits follows upon conviction by final judgment ofthe accused for offenses punishable under RA 3019 orTitle 7, Book 2 of the Revised Penal Code or anyoffense involving fraud. "

On 23 October 2012, Petitioner received the letter from the

GSIS-Davao Branch Manager informing him of the aforementioned

CoC Resolution No. 07-2012.8

On 27 November 20L2, petitioner applied for the early

termination of his probation with the City Probation and Parole

Officer of Davao City.e

On 20 December 2012, petitioner filed his Petition before the

Board of Trustees, alleging that a) the Sandiganbayan's approval

and grant of his probation operates to suspend the execution of the

principal penalty of imprisonment and fine and all the accessory

I Petitioner's Appeal Brief Dated 17 December 2012.e Petitioner's Memorandum dated April 70,2073.

PoEc 5

IN THE MATTER oF: App.lr trom the conmi(.e on criims r..sorutiotr *,, t,-,'3::"rf5:'X';;""'?""Petilion for Retiremenl Benenrs. A1!IADO 1. SOI,AMO, Petitionet

penalties inherent and concomitant thereto including special

temporary disqualification and retirement benefits due to the

probationer;r0 b) the pendency of his administrative case before the

Court of Appeals is beyond the ambit of the Implementing Rules

and Reguiations of R.A. 10154 which provides that retirement

benefits of retiring employees may be withheld if the employee has

a pending administrative cds€;r1 and c) the denial of his retirement

benefits deprives him of his substantive and procedural rights in

violation of equal protection clause of the constitution . 12

On the other hand, Respondent Committee

maintains that a) approval and grant of probation

on

do

Claims (CoC),

not operate to

suspend the execution of the penalties imposed; b) termination of

probation does not operate to restore petitioner's entitlement to

retirement benefits; and c) petitioner's retirement benefits were

forfeited by virtue of the Decision dated 18 October 2005 of the

Office of the Ombudsman.13

On 26 December 201'2, a Motion for Early Termination of

Probation was filed on petitioner's behalf by his Probation Officer.

On L4 January 2013, the Executive Judge of Regional Trial Court of

Davao City granted the motion for early termination of probation

and restored unto petitioner all his civil rights.la

10 Petitioner's Memorandum dated 10 April 2013, p.3r1 Id.p. 7.t2 Petitioner's Appeal Briefdated 17 December 2012 and Memorandum dated 10

April 2013, p. 3.13 CoC Memorandum dated 23 April 2013.la Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 6-7.

lltqr 6

rN rHE MAr-rER or.: Arresr rrom rhc commitree on creim3 Resororion *,. ,-.3::i,f,fi:,fl,;;""'?'-"P€lition for [cliremert Berefils. AMADO M SOL?tMO, Petitione.

On 10 July 2013, the Supreme Court rendered a Resolution

on Petitioner's administrative case (Amado Inocentes vs. Office of

the Ombudsman, NBI & Pablito Reginio, G.R. Nos. 206750-51)

affirming the Court of Appeals' Decision dated 13 May 2011 and

Resolution dated 27 October 2011.

The GSIS records, however, bear only the 2011 certification

from the Court of Appeals that the case is pending before it, thus,

on l August 2013, the Petitioner was directed to submit a

certification of the curent status of his administrative case from

the Court (Court of Appeals or Supreme Court) where it is pending.

Petitioner failed to comply with the said directive.

On L5 August201,3, the Supreme Court (SC) issued an Entry

of Judgment in G.R. Nos. 206750-51(administrative case).

Through a representative from the GSIS Cagayan de Oro

Branch Office, the GSIS secured copies of the CA consolidated

Decision dated 13 May 2011 and Resolution dated 27 October 2011.

in CA-G.R. SP. NO. 01796-MIN and CA-G.R. SP NO. 01363-MIN as

well as the Entry of Judgment issued by the SC.

fssues

Whether Petitioner is entitled to his claim forretirement benefit.

Whether the grant of probation and its subsequenttermination extinguishes the penalty of forfeitureof retirement benefits of a probationer who wasfound guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct

1)

2)

l'aEc 7

lN THE MATIER or: Appe.l rro", rhecommife. on claihs Rsorution -" '-,o'9:'lf.rSF:tL:;""'?'-"Petirion f',r Retirenent BeDefils. AIIADO M SOLAI\lO' Petitio e.

bribery under Article 210 of the Revised PenalCode;

3) Whether Section 6 of the Implementing Rules andRegulations of R.A. 10L54 is applicable topetitioner.

4) Whether the disapproval of petitioner's applicationfor retirement benefits deprives him of hissubstantive and procedural rights in violation ofequal protection clause of the constitution;

Discussion

Petitioner is not entitled to his claim for retirement benefits.

Both the final decisions in the criminal case and the

administrative case justify the forfeiture of Petitioner's retirement

benefits.

For one, Petitioner Solamo cannot claim his retirement

benefits in view of the Ombudsman Decision dated t B October

2005 in NBI and Pablito B. Reginio vs. Amado M. Solamo (OMB-M-

A-04-21,6-I) finding him administratively liable of the

administrative offenses of grave misconduct and dishonesty and

imposing upon him the penalty of "DISMISSAL FROM THE

SERVICE in accordance with Section 52, A(1) (3) of Rule IV

(Penalties) of the URACCS".

Sec. 58, Rule IV of the Uniform Rule in Administrative Cases

in the Civil Service (URACCS) provides the "administrative

disabilities" that the dismissal from service inherently carries,

CSIS Case No. OO1.13lN THtr MATTER OF: Appeal from the Commillce on Chims Resolulion No 07'20l2 denvi's Peiitiooer's

P€tition for Retiremenl Be.elits. ANIADO NI SOLAMO' Petitionet

which are " cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement

benefits. and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in

the government service, unless otherwise prouided in the decision.

The Ombudsman Decision dated 1B October 2005 is

immediately executory even pending appeal by the Petitioner to

the Court of Appeals and the Supreme CourL, pursuant to existing

rulesls and jurisprudence. tu Hence, the penalties of dismissal and

forfeiture of retirement benefits imposed on Petitioner are

immediately executory even pending appeal.

Furthermore, when Petitioner filed his retirement claim on

28 September 20tL, the Ombudsman Decision dated 18 October

2005 had already been affirmed by the Court of Appeals on 13 May

2011.. The same attained finality on 15 August 2013 through an

Entry of Judgment in the Supreme Court. With the Decision having

become final and executory, the implementation of the

15 Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. -

xxx xxx xxxAn appeal shall not stop the decision from being

executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and therespondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as havingbeen under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary andsuch other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of thesuspension or removal.

A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman inadministrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course.The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shallbe strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal orfailure by any officer withoutjust cause to comply with an order ofthe Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, orcensure shall be ground for disciplinary action against said officer.(Emphasis supplied)

ru Office ofthe Ombudsman vs. Samson De Leon, G.R. No. 154083, February 27,20t3

I't8! 9

GSIS Case No. 001-13IN THE MAT'IER OF: Appeal frdm the Commitlee or Clcins R.solution No. 07-2012 denyins P.ririoner's

l'elitio, for Refirement B.nefits. AlltADO I!t. SOLANIO, P.titioner

Ombudsman's Decision dated 1B October 2005 is simply a

ministerial duty on the part of the GSIS.

For another, in its decision dated 28 April 2011 in Crim. Case

No. 28258, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of Direct Bribery under the second

paragraph of Article 2IO of the Revised Penal Code. " On 28

September 201L and pending resolution of his application for

probation before the Sandiganbayan, Petitioner filed his

application for retirement benefits with the GSIS Davao Regional

Office.18

Thus, the GSIS Davao Branch Office and the CoC did not

err in denying Petitioner's claim for retirement benefits

because an application for probation constitutes an admission of

guilt, making the judgment of conviction final. " By availing of

probation, the conuicted accused admits his guilt. The corollary

implication is that the filing of a petition for probation, considered

a waiver of the accused's right to appeal, makes his conviction final

the moment he files said application."le Sec. 4, PD 968 as amended,

in part provides "The filing of the application shall be deemed a

waiver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a

pending appeal."

17 Supra, Note 1.r8 Petitioner's Memorandum dated April L0, 20L3, p.2.ls Heirs of the late Francisco Abueg vs. Court of Appeals and Joselito Orafia,

[A.M. No. RTJ-02-1716. September 72,2OO2.l (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.02-1424-RU).

h1g! I0

IN TIIE MATTER oF: Appcsl ,ron, rhe Commitre. on cltims Resoluriotr *. ,-,,,9::;f,:i':,f,:;"'.'?'-"Pelilion tor Retirem.nt Betrefits-,l]UADO IU SOLAMO, Petitioner

Corollarily, having applied for probation, Petitioner's

conviction became final and executory even prior to his application

for retirement benefits. Thus, . Iosing his retirement benefits,

pursuant Io Sec. 13, RA 3019 which provides:

Section L3. Suspension and loss of benefits. Anypublic officer against whom any criminal prosecutionunder a valid information under this Act or under theprovisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery ispending in court, shall be suspended from office.Should he be conuicted by tinal iudgment, he shalllose aII retirement or gratuity benefits under anyIaw, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled toreinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which hefailed to receive during suspension, unless in themeantime administrative proceedings have been filedagainst him.

Petitioner's contention that the grant of probation by the

Sandiganbayan in his criminal case of direct bribery operates to

suspend the execution of penalties and all the accessory penalties

thereof, is untenable even if we are to affirm the basis of the CoC

and GSIS Davao Branch in the disapproval of petitioner's

retirement claim. An application for probation constitutes an

admission of guilt, making the judgment of conviction final. By

availing of probation, the convicted accused admits his guilt. The

corollary implication is that the filing of a petition for probation,

considered a waiver of the accused's right to appeal, makes his

conviction final the moment he files said application."20

20 Heirs of the late Francisco Abueg vs.lA.M. No. RTJ-02-1716. September 12,02-1424-RTJ).

Court of Appeals and Joselito Oraffa,2002.1 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No.

htt!. I1

rN THE MATTER oF: Appc.r rrom the comm*re€ on craims R€sorurion *". ,-.,9ilfrfi'ri,X,i;"'.'?'-"Pelition for Rrtircment Benefils. AIUADO iU. SOLAMO, Petitio et

The subsequent termination of petitioner Solamo's probation

does not extinguish the accessory penalties of forfeiture of

retirement benefits provided under Sec. L3 of RA No. 3019.

Probation is primarily intended for the reformation of the

probationer 21 and not to excuse the latter from any criminal

Iiabilities and accessory penalties. Nothing in PD No. 698 as

amended by PD No. 1990 indicates that probation extinguishes the

probationer's criminal liability and the penalties attached to it.

Extinguishment of penalties, such as the forfeiture of

retirement benefits imposed by Sec. 13 of RA No. 3019, is not

within the spirit and letter of the Probation Law.

Further, the Supreme Court in Atty. Romeo S. Perez vs.

Hon. Judge Carlos Abiera22 declared that before one may be

entitled to retirement gratuity, certain requisites must concur, viz:

First, he must have paid the premiums required underSection 5 of Republic Act No. 660 known as the GovernmentService Act. Second, he must have reached the compulsoryage of retirement under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 910as amended by Republic Act No. 2614 and 5O95. Third, hemust have rendered satisfactory and meritorious service tothe government, for a grant of retirement benefits is notonly an act of generosity or liberality on the part of thegovernment but is equally a compensation and reward forsatisfactory, faithful, meritorious and valuable senticerendered to the latter. (underscoring and italizationsupplied. )

21 Agustin Salgado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89606 August 30,Alvin Lee Koenig, Post Sentence Investigation, Its Importance andJournal, Special Issue on Probation, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 381-387.

22 A.M. No. 223-.I.Iune 71, 7975.

1990 citingUtility, IBP

GSIS Case No. OOl-13IN THE MATTER Of: Apperl rrom thcCoDmiitee on Cl,ims Resolution No.07-2012 denyitrt Pelilioner's

Petilion for Retiremetrl Benelils. ,\MADO l. SOLAMO. PetitioMr

Here, petitioner Solamo has only satisfied the first two

requisites but not the third requisite of satisfactory and meritorious

service because the Ombudsman in its Decision dated 1B October

2005, found the Petitioner administratively liable for grave

misconduct and dishonesty, which decision was affirmed by both

the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and subsequently

attained finality on 10 July 2013. Clearly, Petitioner failed to render

satisfactory and meritorious service. Thus, he cannot demand

payment of any retirement benefits.

Anent Solamo's argument that Section 6 23 of the

Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 10154 which

authorizes the withholding of retirement benefits of government

employees with pending administrative cases, is not applicable to

him, the same is nol persuasive.

The pendency of Solamo's administrative case before the

Court of Appeals does not put him beyond the ambit of the

23 Section 6. Retiring Employees with Pending Cases. "Retirement benefits ofretiring employees may only be withheld if the employee has a pendingadministrative case, the outcome of the case involves a possible pecuniaryliability on the part of the employee and the law specifically authorizes thewithholding of the retirement benefits. In no case, however, shall theterminal/accrued leave benefits of a retiring employee withheld because of apending administrative case.

The head of agency where the administrative case against a retiringemployee is pending shall ensure that the said case is terminated/resolvedwithin a period of three (3) months from the effectivity date of retirement ofthe concerned employee. After the lapse of such period and the case has notyet been terminated/resolved, without justifiable reason/s and/or without faultor delay attributable to the retiring employee, the retirement benefits due shallbe immediately released to him/her without prejudice to the outcome of thecase. The concerned quasi-judicial agency where the case is pending shalldetermine and resolve issues pertaining to aforesaid faulVor delay."

GSIS Casc No. Ool-liIN THti MATTIjR OF: ppell frc lhe Commitlee on Cliims Resolulion No 07-2012 denyitrg Pciitioner's

Pclitior for Reliren.nt Bcnefiis. AlttADO Nl. SOLAltlo, Petitioter

provisions of RA No. lOI54z4 which authorizes the withholding of

the retirement benefits of employees with pending administrative

cases.

Sec. 6 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No.

10154 applies to all employees with pending case, the outcome of

which involves a possible pecuniary liability on the part of the

employee. It mandates the head of agency to ensure the

administrative case is resolved within a period of three (3) months

from the effective date of retirement. After the lapse of such

period, the retirement benefits shall be released without prejudice

to the outcome of the case.

The foregoing provision is irrelevant to Petitioner's case.

The administrative case was resolved prior to Petitioner's

retirement. The decision in administrative case which carried the

accessory penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits is

immediately executory.

Hence, there is no withholding to speak of within the

contemplation of the law but an actual forfeiture of retirement

-benefits in order to enforce the immediately executory decision in

the administrative case.

Finally, on the issue of whether the disapproval of petitioner

Solamo's application for retirement benefits constitutes deprivation

24 An Act Requiring All ConcernedRelease Of The Retirement Pay,Retiring Government Employees.

Government agencies To Ensure The EarlyPensions, Gratuities And Other Benefits Of

OsIs Case No. ool-13IN THE MATTER OF! App..l from lh. CommittE or Cl.im3 Resolotion No. 07-2012 denyins P.fitioner's

P.tiliotr lor Retiremena Benefi&. AMADO M. SOLAMO, P4 ion.t

of substantive and procedural rights in violation of equal protection

clause, we rule in the negative. Petitioner just made a general

averment of the alleged violation of his right to equal protection

without any evidentiary support and substantiation. The basic rule

is that mere allegation is not evidence.

Further, the purpose of the equal protection clause is to

secure every person within a state's jurisdiction against intentional

and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express

terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state's

duly-constituted authorities. 2s

Here, the forfeiture of Petitioner's retirement benefits is

mandated by law specifically under Sec. 13 of RA No. 3019 and

Sec. 5B, Rule IV of the URACCS, which applies to all other

government employees similarly situated. Petitioner was not in

anyway discriminated when the foregoing provisions were imposed

and his retirement benefits were forfeited. Thus, there is no

violation to speak of.

All told, Petitioner is not entitled to any retirement benefits

in view of the penalty of dismissal imposed on him by the

Ombudsman which found him administratively liable for grave

misconduct.

25.]ose Miguel T. Arroyo vs. Department OfJustice, G.R. No. 199082, September18,2012.

,.i

GSIS Case No. OOl-13tN THE MA'I'rER OF: App..l lrom lhe Conmill!. on Cl.iD! Rsolutiotr No. 07-2012 deDying Pctiiober's

Pelilion for R.tir.m.rt B.nefiG AMADO M. SOLAMO, Petitioaer

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed for Iack of

merit. The CoC Resolution No. 07-20L2 dated 20 March 2Ol2 is

hereby affirmed with modifications. Petitioner is not entitled to

retirement benefits because the penalty of Dismissal from Sewice

imposed by the Ombudsman in its Decision dated 1B October 2005

in OMB-M-A-04-2L6-1 finding him administratively liable for grave

misconduct and dishonesty, carries the penalty of forfeiture of

retirement benefits.

SO ORDERED.

Pasay City, I 2 FEB 2015

DANIEL L. LACSON, JR.*Chairman

ROBERTICe

l)Jc. vn$anaChairman

u

"(

ELISEATrust

' 4n^,c0zf,r.r

XKARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID

Trustee

GERALDINE MARIE BERBERABE-MARTINEZTrustee

5$.\'. - \ I \r

OMAN FEL

* Did not participate in the discussion.

fum"sk

Page 16

CSIS Case No. dr1'73IN TttE MATIER Of! App..l frod th. Cornll.c. or ctit[! R..ohdo! No. 0?'2012 d..vfu Pdnhr.r't

Pdldor for n drtn a.r.6E AMADO M. SOLAMO, P.,n o,.'

Copy furnished:

ATTY. AMN)O SOIJ\MOPetitionerDoor 2 G/F, Lopez Bldg.,Cor. Candelaria & Maya Sta.,Ecoland II, Davao City

PROSECUTION AND QUASI JUDICIALCASES DEPARTMENT, LEGAL SERVICES GROUPGovernment Service Insurance SystemFinancial Center, Pasay City 1308

\\

* Did not partlcipate ln the discussiou.

csls Case No. ool-13IN THE MATTER OF: Appett frcm the Comnilte. on ClriD! R.solulion No. 07'2012 dlnviry P'litioner's

P.ririon for Rctiremlhi Bcr.tib. AMADO M. SOLAMO, Pt ,io,rt'

CERTIFICATION

I, BERNADETH R. BISOC, Attorney IV of the GSIS Legal ServicesGroup, having been assigned (to draft a Decision in GSIS Board ofTrustees Case No. 001-13 entitled "Amado M' Solamo vs. GSISCommittee on Claims" hereby certify that the statement of factsherein stated and being presented before this Board is based onthe records of the case, the pleadings and other documentssubmitted by the parties.

This certification is issued in compliance with Board Resolution No.

198-A adopted on September L5, 2004.

Pasay City, 21January 2015.

BERNADET BISOCHearing Officer

G S I S s#."# T"'il,1:,J,'J;?ll',ylflli,*f ls[[

OFFICD OF THE CORPORATE SECRETARY

E,XACT COPY OF RES. NO. 12 ADOPTED BY THE GSIS BOARD OF.TRUSTEES IN ITS MEETING NO. 3 HELD ON 12 FEBRUARY 2()15

Approval ofthe Declslon ln Board Case No. OOl-13, Inthe lfiatter of the Appeol from the Commlttee on ClalmsResolutlon denglng Petltloner's Petltlon for Release ofhls Retlrement Beneflts, Amado M. Solamo, Petitloner

RESOLUTION NO. ,lZ

WHEREAS, Mr. Amado M. Solamo filed aPetition before the GSIS Board of Trustees, docketedas Board Case No. 001-13, seeking to reverse and setaside Resolution No. O7-2O12 of the Committee onClaims (CoC) dated 20 March 2O 12, which affirmedthe disapproval of his application for release ofretirement benefits;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3O of R.A. No.8291, the GSIS has original and exclusive jurisdictionto settle any dispute arising from the application ofthe laws administered by the GSIS;

RESOLVED, to APPROVE and CONFIRM theDecision in Board Case No. 001-13, In the Motter oftLrc Appeal from the Committee on Claims Resolutiondenging Petitioner's Petition for Release of hisRetirement Benefits, Amado M. Solamo, Petitioner,the dispositive portion of which states:

"ACCORDINGLY, the petition is herebydismissed for lack of merit. The CoCResolution No. O7-2O12 dated 20 Marcln. 2Ol2is hereby affirmed with modifications.Petitioner is not entitled to retirement benefitsbecause the penalty of Dismissal from Service

BOARI' MEETING NO. 312 TEBRUARY 2015

Page 2(Res. No. l2- -20l5l

imposed by the Ombudsman in its Decisiondated 18 October 2005 in OMB-M-A-04-216-lfinding him administratively liable for gravemisconduct and dishonesty, carries the penaltyof forfeiture of retirement benefits."

..SO ORDERED."

A copy of the Decision in Board Case No. OO1-13 is attached and made an integral part of thisResolution.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

ATTY. MARIA THERESA ABESAIIIIS-RAAGASCorporate Secretary

CONFIRMED:

Chairman

(on leave)

,w{RT G. VE&GARA ITARINA CONSTANTINO.I'AVID

*kffi{tTrustee

oFt

BOARI' MEETING NO. 312 FEBRUARY 2015

Page 3(Res. lYo. 12 -2()151

w,hW;""

GERALDINE MARIE BERBERABT-MAR'TINEZTrustee

l;t.i::-'-

OPG

ROMEO M. ALIP