Appellate Jurisdiction

G.R. No. 158071 – Santos vs. Committee on Claims Settlement, et al

Leonardo-De Castro

Petitioner retired from the DAR in 1986 under RA 16161. He was re-employed in the Ombudsman and subsequently moved
to avail of early retirement under RA 6602. Unfortunately, he is no longer allowed to retire under RA 660 as there was a law
subsequently passed leaving him w/ only one option w/c is to retire under RA 8291. Note that under the said law, his
previous years of service will be excluded in the computation of his pension. Upon review, the CA dismissed his petition
ruling that he availed of the wrong remedy. CA said that it lacks jurisdiction to answer his queries. The SC ruled otherwise,
stating the under Rule 43, the CA is perfectly capable to address his petition.

DOCTRINE
As a general rule, appeals on pure questions of law are brought to this Court since Sec. 5 (2) (e), Art. VIII of the
Constitution includes the in the enumeration of cases within its jurisdiction “all cases in which only an error or question of
law is involved.” It should not be overlooked, however, that the same provision vesting jurisdiction in this Court of the
cases enumerated therein prefaced by the statement that it may “review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari as the law or Rules of Court may provide,” the judgments or final orders of lower courts in the cases therein
enumerated. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure constitutes an exception to the aforesaid general rule on
appeals. Rule 43 provides for an instance where an appellate review solely on a question of law may be sought in the
CA instead of this Court.

Sec. 5 (2) (e), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Jose Santos – petitioner; retiree (twice over)
Committee on Claims Settlement, GSIS – respondent

FACTS

NATURE of the petition: Petition for review on certiorari

ASSAILED: Decision dated Jan. 6, 2003 and Resolution April 22, 2003 of the CA in the “Jose Santos v. Committee on
Claims Settlement and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).”

1. Retired – Aug. 16, 1986: Jose S. Santos (petitioner) retired from the Dept. of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant to
RA 1616 after rendering almost 21 years of service.
2. Re-employed – Jan. 2, 1989: He was re-employed in the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
3. Early retirement – 1997 He initiated moves to avail of early retirement under RA 660. He requested and received
a tentative computation of retirement benefits (P667,937.40) from GSIS Operating Unit.
4. Formally Applied – Jan. 1998: He formally applied for retirement under RA 660.
5. GSIS Letter – GSIS Operating Unit informed him that he could no longer retire under RA 660 but he could do so
under RA 82913, under w/c he is entitled to a reduced benefit of P81,557.20. This computation did not consider
petitioner’s 20.91553 years of service w/ the DAR prior to his previous retirement.
6. Appeal – He appealed to respondent GSIS Committee on Claims. It affirmed the GSIS Operating Unit’s
computation under RA 8291.
7. Complaint – He filed w/ the GSIS Board of Trustees a complaint against respondent GSIS CoC.
8. Denied – Feb. 15, 2000: GSIS BoT denied his complaint:
 He’s not allowed to retire under RA 660

1 RA 1616 – An Act Further Amending Sec. 12 of CA 186, as Amended, by Prescribing 2 Other Modes of Retirement and for Other Purposes; Gratuituy
benefit plus return of contribution
2 RA 660 – Pension benefit, that is, 5 year lump sum pension and after 5 years, life time pension
3 RA 8291 – An Act Amending Presidential Decree No. 1146, as amended, Expanding and Increasing the Coverage and Benefit of the GSIS; 24 Jun ‘97

1
  Operating Unit is ordered to process his retirement effective March 21, 2000 under the gratuity retirement of RA 1616 OR
the pension retirement under RA 8291 after he formally indicates w/c mode he would like to avail of.
9. Compulsory Retirement – March 20, 2000: He was compulsorily retired for reaching the age of 65.
10. MR – He filed a motion for reconsideration of the Feb. 15, 2000 (See #8) decision of the Board of Trustees. He
attached documentary evidence to his motion w/c showed several retirees who were later on reemployed after their
first retirement and were allowed to choose the law under w/c they can again retire. He’d like to get the same
privilege.
----------- here comes the important part; relevant to the lesson----------

11. Petitioner for Review under Rule 43 – Aggrieved, he filed w/ the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 (1997,
Rules of Civil Procedure)
12. CA’s challenged decision – Jan. 6, 2003: CA rendered its decision dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction:
 The focal issue raised herein, i.e., w/n the petitioner can choose to retire under either RA 8291 or RA 660, is a pure
question of law. As such, this Court (CA) is not vested w/ jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case since there is no dispute
w/ respect to the fact that when an appeal raised only pure question of law, it is only the SC w/c has jurisdiction to entertain
the same (Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (2) (e), 1987 Consti; Rule 45, also Santos, Jr. vs. CA)
 Procedure adopted by petitioner in this case is improper. Proper procedure should’ve been to file a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 w/in 15 days from notice of judgment pointing out errors of law that will warrant a reversal or modification of the
decision or judgment sought to be reviewed.
13. MR – He filed an MR but the CA denied it.
14. Review on Certiorari – He filed a petition (this case at hand) for review on certiorari

ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER RESPONDENT
CA erred in dismissing his petition w/c raised BOTH questions of Proper remedy of petitioner is to file PETITION FOR REVIEW
LAW and FACT w/c are WELL WITHIN its jurisdiction pursuant under RULE 45 and not under RULE 43, there being only pure
to RULE 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. questions of LAW involved. Hence, it correctly dismissed it.
Even if the petition raises only question of law, the same is
STILL WITHIN the jurisdiction of the CA pursuant to Sec. 31, RA
8291 (w/c says that appeals from any decision or award by the
Board of Trustees shall be governed by Rules 43 & 45)

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N CA erred in dismiss its petition for lack of jurisdiction/W/N Rule 43 was the proper remedy. – YES
a. Sec. 1, Rule 43 – Scope
“This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the CTA and form awards, judgments, final
orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions. Among these agencies are the CSC…GSIS…”

Sec. 3, Rule 43 – Where to appeal

“An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the CA…whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law,
or mixed questions of fact and law.”

b. Cited case: Posadas-Moya vs. Greenfield (Question of Law vs. Question of Fact)
“A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy on what the law is on a certain state of facts. There
is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises from the trust or the falsity of the allegations of facts.”

c. Thus, the question on whether the petitioner can retire under RA 660 or RA 8291 is undoubtedly a question of law
because it centers on what law to apply in his case considering that he has previously retired from the gov’t under
a particular statute and that he was re-employed by the gov’t.

d. Rule 43 provides for an instance where an appellate review solely on a question of law may be sought in
the CA instead of the SC.

e. However, remanding this case to the CA would be a waste of time because the core issue can be resolved based
on the records of the proceedings before the GSIS.
2
2. W/N GSIS erred in ruling against the petitioner’s favor – NO

a. GSIS’ ruling as to w/c retirement law is applicable to petitioner deserves full faith and credit.
b. Petitioner fails to convince us that there are justifiable reasons to depart form the GSIS’ decision in his case.
**I won’t discuss this part at length because it’s irrelevant to the jurisdiction topic, basta SC said na malinaw naman
‘yung batas. “Clearly, the option to retire is preserved under PD 1146 for those who were in the government
service upon its effectivity in view of the rule on non-impairment of benefits.” Such right to choose the law
under w/c he would retire and be covered by RA 660 is NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO HIM because he has
already exercised said right when he availed of it during his previous retirement in 1986. In 1986, he chose
to forego the benefits of RA 660 and retired under RA 1616.
c. “Once the retired employees are however re-employed, they shall subsequently retire only under PD 1146.”
d. As a re-employed member of the gov’t service who is retiring during the effectivity of RA 8291, petitioner can’t have
his previous gov’t service w/ the DAR credited in the computation of his retirement benefit. Neither can he choose
a mode of retirement except that provided under RA 8291 (per the IRR of said law).

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
All told, even if we find that the CA committed reversible error when it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petition filed
before it, we see no reason to deviate from the findings of the GSIS. Hence, the instant petition must necessarily fail.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

BOTTOMLINE: Rule 43 is the PROPER remedy BUT unfortunately for the petitioner, the findings of GSIS must be upheld.
He’s still bound to retire under RA 8291 and those excluded years in the computation shall remain excluded.

DIGESTER: Viveka 🍓