G.R. No. 158071. April 2, 2009.

* Same; Same; Same; Only employees who are in the government

JOSE SANTOS, petitioner, vs. COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS service upon the effectivity of Presidential Decree 1146 who shall have, at the
SETTLEMENT, and GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE time of retirement, the option to retire under the old law or CA 186 (otherwise
known as the Government Service Insurance Act, or the GSIS Charter) are
SYSTEM (GSIS), respondents.
exempt from the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 1146.—All employees
of the government are covered by PD 1146 upon its effectivity. Only
Remedial Law; Appeals; Question of Law distinguished from One of employees who are in the government service upon the effectivity of the said
Fact.—In Posadas-Moya and Associates Construction Co., Inc. v. Greenfield law who shall have, at the time of retirement, the option to retire under the old
Development Corporation, et al., 403 SCRA 530 (2003), the Court law or CA 186 (otherwise known as the Government Service Insurance Act,
distinguished a question of law from one of fact, thus: A question of or the GSIS Charter) are exempt from the coverage of PD 1146.
law exists when there is doubt or controversy on what the law is on a certain Same; Same; Same; All service credited for retirement, resignation or
state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises separation for which corresponding benefits have been awarded shall be
from the truth or the falsity of the allegations of facts. Explained the Court: “A excluded in the computation of service in case of re-employment.—Section 5.2
question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct of the same implementing rules states that all service credited for retirement,
application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue resignation or separation for which corresponding benefits have been
does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence awarded shall be excluded in the computation of service in case of re-
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact employment. As a re-employed member of the government service who is
exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts retiring during the effectivity of RA 8291, petitioner cannot have his previous
or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering government service with the DAR credited in the computation of his
mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific retirement benefit. Neither can he choose a mode of retirement except that
surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the provided under R.A. 8291.
whole, and the probability of the situation.”
Same; Same; Same; As a general rule, appeals on pure questions of
law are brought to the Court since Sec. 5 (2) (e), Art. VIII of the Constitution PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of
includes in the enumeration of cases within its jurisdiction “all cases in which the Court of Appeals.
only an error or question of law is involved”; Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Civil Procedure constitutes an exception to the aforesaid general rule on   Delos Reyes, Bonifacio, Delos Reyes for petitioner.
appeals.—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 in the 155
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
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 155
same provision vesting jurisdiction in this Court of the cases enumerated Santos vs. Committee on Claims
therein is prefaced by the statement that it may “review, revise, reverse,
modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the Settlement
_______________ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
* FIRST DIVISION.
Decision  dated January 6, 2003, and Resolution  dated April 22,
1 2

153
2003 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 65163,
entitled “Jose Santos v. Committee on Claims Settlement and
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).”
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, The facts are as follows:
2009 53 On August 16, 1986, petitioner Jose S. Santos retired from the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant to Republic Act
Santos vs. Committee on Claims
(R.A.) 1616  after rendering almost 21 years of service.
3

Settlement On January 2, 1989, petitioner was re-employed in the Office of

law or the Rules of Court may provide,” the judgments or final orders the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
of lower courts in the cases therein enumerated. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of In 1997, petitioner initiated moves to avail of early retirement
Civil Procedure constitutes an exception to the aforesaid general rule on under R.A. 660.  He requested and received from the Government
4

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.
Service Insurance System (GSIS) Operating Unit a tentative
Same; Same; Same; A question of fact or question of law alone or a computation of retirement benefits under R.A. 660 amounting to
mix question of fact and law may be appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) P667,937.40. Petitioner formally applied for retirement under R.A.
via Rule 43.—An appeal to the CA may be taken within the reglementary 660 in January 1998.
period to appeal whether the appeal involves questions of fact, law, or mixed However, in a Letter  dated May 4, 1998, the GSIS Operating Unit
5

questions of fact and law. As such, a question of fact or question of informed petitioner that he could no longer retire under R.A. 660 but
law alone or a mix question of fact and law may be appealed to the he could do so under R.A. 8291,  under 6

CA via Rule 43. Thus, in Carpio v. Sulu Resources Development Corporation, _______________

387 SCRA 128 (2002), we held: According to Section 3 of Rule 43, “[a]n
appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period 1 Penned by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. (ret.) and concurred in by
and in the manner herein provided whether the appeal involves questions of Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia (retired member of this Court) and Sergio L.
fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.” Hence, appeals from quasi- Pestaño, Rollo, pp. 34-39.
judicial agencies even only on questions of law may be brought to the CA. 2 Rollo, p. 41.
Government Service Insurance System; Retirement; Public Officers; 3 An Act Further Amending Section Twelve of Commonwealth Act Numbered One
The option to retire is preserved under Presidential Decree No. 1146 for Hundred Eighty-Six, as Amended, by Prescribing Two Other Modes of Retirement and
those who were in the government service upon its effectivity in view of the for Other Purposes; Gratuity benefit plus return of contribution.
4 Pension benefit, that is, 5 year lump sum pension and after 5 years, life time
rule on non-impairment of benefits.—The option to retire is preserved under pension.
PD 1146 for those who were in the government service upon its effectivity in 5 Record, pp. 57-59.
view of the rule on non-impairment of benefits. There is an apparent gray area 6 An Act Amending Presidential Decree No. 1146, as amended, Expanding and
when an employee who was in the government service upon the effectivity PD Increasing the Coverage and Benefit of the Govern-
1146 but opted to retire under one of the previous retirement laws. Once
reinstated, are they still entitled, upon reinstatement, to exercise the option to 156
again retire under the old law?
Same; Same; Same; Section 13 of the law expressly states that in the
15 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
event of re-employment the subsequent retirement shall be governed by 6 ANNOTATED
Presidential Decree No. 1146.—When petitioner first retired in 1986, the
applicable law to his situation was P.D. 1146 as amended by P.D. 1981. Santos vs. Committee on Claims
Section 13 of that law (upon which petitioner himself bases his right to choose Settlement
the law to govern his retirement) expressly states that in the event of re-
which petitioner is entitled to a reduced benefit of P81,557.20. This
employment the subsequent154
computation did not consider petitioner’s 20.91553 years of service
with the DAR prior to his previous retirement.
1 SUPREME COURT Petitioner appealed to respondent GSIS Committee on Claims.
54 REPORTS ANNOTATED Unfortunately, respondent affirmed the GSIS Operating Unit’s
computation under R.A. 8291.
Santos vs. Committee on Claims On August 25, 1999, petitioner filed with the GSIS Board of
Settlement Trustees a complaint against respondent docketed as GSIS Case No.
retirement shall be governed by P.D. 1146. Even the Government 002-99.
Corporate Counsel supported such view through its Opinion No. 100, Series On February 15, 2000, the GSIS Board of Trustees rendered a
of 1981, stating that in the event the member is reinstated in the service after decision  denying petitioner’s complaint, thus:
7

having exercised the option to retire under RA 1616, he shall subsequently be “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered denying Petitioner Jose S.
retireable under PD 1146 only. Santos’ Petition to be allowed to retire under the pension plan under RA 660,
and modifying the Resolution of the Government Service Insurance System’s
Committee on Claims Settlement adopted in its Committee Meeting No. 158 Petitioner avers that the CA erred in dismissing his petition
held on September 23, 1996, insofar as it limits Petitioner’s mode of which raised both questions of law and fact which are well within its
retirement to that provided in RA 8291. The Operating Unit concerned is jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ordered to process Petitioner’s retirement effective March 21, 2000 under the
According to petitioner the petition raised factual issues which
gratuity retirement of RA 1616 or the pension retirement under RA 8291 after
he formally indicates which mode he would like to avail of. necessitated the review of the records of the re-employed retirees
SO ORDERED.” who were allowed by the GSIS to retire under the law of their choice.
Petitioner further avers that even if CA-G.R. SP No. 65163 raises
In the meantime, on March 20, 2000, petitioner was only questions of law, the same is still within the jurisdiction of the
compulsorily retired for reaching the age of sixty-five. CA pursuant to Section 31 of Republic Act No. 8291, which provides
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the February 15, that appeals from any decision or award by the Board of Trustees
2000 decision of the Board of Trustees. He attached documentary shall be governed by Rules 43 and 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
evidence to his motion which showed several retirees who were later Procedure.
on reemployed after their first retirement and were allowed to choose Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the proper remedy
the law under which they can again retire. Thus, like them, he should of petitioner is to file a petition for review under Rule 45 and not
also be allowed to retire under the law of his choice. The GSIS Board under Rule 43, there being only pure questions of law involved in the
of Trustees denied his motion for reconsideration on March 27, 2001. case. Hence, the CA correctly dismissed the petition before it. 159
_______________
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 159
ment Service Insurance System, Instituting Reforms therein and for Other Purposes, Santos vs. Committee on Claims
which took effect on June 24, 1997.
Settlement
7 Rollo, pp. 43-52.
We deal first with the procedural issue raised by petitioner.
Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly states:
157 “Section 1. Scope.—This Rule shall apply to appeals
from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards,
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 157 judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-
Santos vs. Committee on Claims judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these
agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment
Settlement Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land
Aggrieved, petitioner filed with the CA a petition for review Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board,
under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National
Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National
On January 6, 2003, the CA rendered the herein challenged
Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under
decision dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled as Republic Act 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees
follows: 8
Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions Board, Insurance
“This Court is of the belief, however, that the focal issue raised Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments,
herein, i.e., whether or not the petitioner can choose to retire under either Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators
Republic Act 8291 or Republic Act 660, is a pure question of law. As such, authorized by law.
this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case since xxx
there is no dispute with respect to the fact that when an appeal raised only Section 3. Where to appeal.—An appeal under this Rule may be
pure question of law, it is only the Supreme Court which has jurisdiction taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner herein
to entertain the same (Article VIII, Section 5 (2) (e), 1987 Constitution; Rule provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed
45, Rules of Court; see also Santos, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, 152 SCRA questions of fact and law.” (emphasis ours)
[1987]).
x x x   x x x   x x x
In Posadas-Moya and Associates Construction Co., Inc. v.
As can be seen from both parties[’] arguments, the instant case calls
for the determination of what the law is on the particular situation of Greenfield Development Corporation, et al.,  the Court distinguished
9

herein petitioner, i.e., whether RA 660 is applicable in his case or only a question of law from one of fact, thus:
that of RA 8291, or both. Such question does not call for an examination of “A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy on what the
the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties because there is law is on a certain state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or
no dispute as to the truth or falsity of the facts obtaining in the case. difference arises from the truth or the falsity of the allegations of facts.
Hence, the procedure adopted by the petitioner in this case is Explained the Court:
improper. The proper procedure that should have been followed was to “A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy
file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a
_______________
within 15 days from notice of judgment pointing out errors of law that
will warrant a reversal or modification of the decision or judgment
9 G.R. No. 141115, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 530, 542.
sought to be reviewed.
x x x   x x x   x x x
160
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of jurisdiction.” (emphasis ours)
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
_______________
0 ANNOTATED
8 Id., at pp. 37-38. Santos vs. Committee on Claims
158 Settlement
certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an
15 SUPREME COURT REPORTS examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the
8 ANNOTATED truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists
when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
Santos vs. Committee on Claims facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence
considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and
Settlement relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the
the same in its Resolution dated April 22, 2003. situation.”
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari with the following
assignment of errors: Thus, the question on whether petitioner can retire under RA 660
“1. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed an error of law in or RA 8291 is undoubtedly a question of law because it centers on
holding that CA-G.R. SP No. 65163 entitled Jose S. Santos vs. Committee on what law to apply in his case considering that he has previously
Claims Settlement, GSIS raises only questions of law, hence the proper retired from the government under a particular statute and that he was
remedy for petitioner is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45;
2. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed an error in not giving re-employed by the government. These facts are admitted and there is
due course to the petition as it raises questions of law only; a reading thereof no need for an examination of the probative value of the evidence
shows that factual issues are raised therein. The said dismissal left unresolved presented.
the questions of law and facts raised in CA-G.R. SP No. 65163; As a general rule, appeals on pure questions of law are brought to
3. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not reversing the decision this Court since Sec. 5 (2) (e), Art. VIII of the Constitution includes
of the GSIS of February 15, 2000, it being contrary to law; in the enumeration of cases within its jurisdiction “all cases in which
4. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in dismissing CA-G.R. SP only an error or question of law is involved.”  It should not be 10

No. 65163, allegedly for lack of jurisdiction.” overlooked, however, that the same provision vesting jurisdiction in
this Court of the cases enumerated therein is prefaced by the
statement that it may “review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,” the On July 19, 1985, P.D. No. 1981 was promulgated amending
judgments or final orders of lower courts in the cases therein Section 13 of PD 1146 as follows:
enumerated.  Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
11 “Sec. 13. Retirement Option.—Employees who are in the government
constitutes an exception to the aforesaid general rule on appeals. Rule service upon the effectivity of this Act shall, at the time of their retirement,
43 provides for an instance where an appellate review solely on a have the option to retire under this Act or under Commonwealth Act No. 186,
as amended, and their benefits and entitlement thereto shall be determined in
question of law may be sought in the CA instead of this Court.
accordance with the provisions of the law so opted: Provided, however, That
Undeniably, an appeal to the CA may be taken within the in the event of re-employment, the employee’s subsequent retirement
reglementary period to appeal whether the appeal involves shall be governed by the provisions of this Act: Provided further, That the
_______________ member may change the mode of his retirement163

10 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume 1, Seventh Revised Edition, pp.

523-524. VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 163
11 Id.
Santos vs. Committee on Claims
161 Settlement
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 161 within one year from the date of his retirement in accordance with such rules
and regulations as may be prescribed by the System. x x x” (emphasis ours)
Santos vs. Committee on Claims
Settlement Clearly, the option to retire is preserved under PD 1146 for those
questions of fact, law, or mixed questions of fact and law. As such, who were in the government service upon its effectivity in view of
a question of fact or question of law alone or a mix question of fact the rule on non-impairment of benefits. There is an apparent gray
and law may be appealed to the CA via Rule 43. Thus, in Carpio v. area when an employee who was in the government service upon the
Sulu Resources Development Corporation,  we held: 12 effectivity PD 1146 but opted to retire under one of the previous
“According to Section 3 of Rule 43, “[a]n appeal under this Rule may be retirement laws. Once reinstated, are they still entitled, upon
taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner herein reinstatement, to exercise the option to again retire under the old law?
provided whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed The GSIS Board of Trustees, in agreement with the Committee
questions of fact and law.” Hence, appeals from quasi-judicial agencies on Claims Settlement concluded that Mr. Santos’ right to choose the
even only on questions of law may be brought to the CA.” (emphasis ours) law under which he would retire and be covered by R.A. 660 is no
longer available to him because he had already exercised said right
However, a remand of the case to the CA would serve no useful when he availed of it during his previous retirement in 1986. In 1986,
purpose, since the core issue in this case, i.e., under which law he chose to forego the benefits of R.A. 660 and retired under R.A.
petitioner can retire, can already be resolved based on the records of 1616.
the proceedings before the GSIS. A remand would unnecessarily When petitioner first retired in 1986, the applicable law to his
impose on the parties the concomitant difficulties and expenses of situation was P.D. 1146 as amended by P.D. 1981. Section 13 of that
another proceeding where they would have to present the same law (upon which petitioner himself bases his right to choose the law
evidence and arguments again. This clearly runs counter to the Rules to govern his retirement) expressly states that in the event of re-
of Court, which mandates liberal construction of the Rules to attain employment the subsequent retirement shall be governed by P.D.
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of any action or proceeding. 13
1146.
We now discuss petitioner’s arguments on the merits. Even the Government Corporate Counsel supported such view
It is well settled that the construction given to a statute by an through its Opinion No. 100, Series of 1981, stating that in the event
administrative agency charged with the interpretation and application the member is reinstated in the service after having exercised the
of that statute is entitled to great respect and should be accorded great option to retire under RA 1616, he shall subsequently be retireable
weight by the courts.  In the case at bar, this Court finds that the
14
under PD 1146 only.
GSIS’ ruling as to which retirement law is applicable to petitioner All employees of the government are covered by PD 1146 upon
deserves full faith and its effectivity. Only employees who are in the government service
_______________
upon the effectivity of the said law who shall have, at the time of
12 G.R. No. 148267, August 8, 2002, 387 SCRA 128, 140.
retirement, the option to retire under the old law or CA 186
13 Morales v. Court of Appeals and Policarpio C. Estrella, G.R. No. 126196, (otherwise known as the Government Service Insurance Act, or the
January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 337, 347 which discussed Section 2 (now Section 6), Rule GSIS Charter) are exempt from the coverage of PD 1146. 164
1 of the Rules of Court.
14 Nestlé Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86738, November 13, 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1991, 203 SCRA 505, 510; Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization, G.R. No. 112399,
July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA 334. 4 ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Committee on Claims
162
Settlement
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
The foregoing applies notwithstanding the rule in Section 44 on
2 ANNOTATED non-impairment of benefits that have become vested under the old
Santos vs. Committee on Claims law. Pursuant to the rule on prospectivity of laws, employees who
have previously retired under CA 186 and were reinstated after the
Settlement effectivity of the new law are already covered by the new law, not
credit. Petitioner fails to convince us that there are justifiable reasons because they are deemed new or original employees, but by mere
to depart from the GSIS’ decision in his case. prospective operation of the new law in force at the time they
As pertinently discussed by the GSIS Board of Trustees, the reentered the service.
grant of the right to choose a mode of retirement in Presidential The same view was shared by the Government Corporate
Decree (P.D.) No. 1146 is found in Section 13. It was reproduced in Counsel, in its Opinion No. 154, Series of 1997, dated July 14, 1997,
Section 11 (c), Rule IV of the Implementing Rules and Regulations when it ruled that the legislature intended to withhold the availability
on the Revised GSIS Act of 1977, adopted by the System’s Board of of retirement option from those who have been re-employed and are
Trustees pursuant to Board Resolution 223-78, stating that: retiring for the second time. If the intent was otherwise, then the
“(c) Employees who were in the government service at the time of the said proviso should have also expressly stated so and/or
effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 1146 shall, at the time of their said proviso should not have been included at all. It stated, thus:
retirement, have the option to retire under said Decree or under
“One of the purposes for the passage of P.D. 1981 is to clarify the parties
Commonwealth Act No. 186, as previously amended.”
to whom the retirement option in Section 13 of P.D. 1146 is available, thus:
WHEREAS, there have been conflicting interpretations of
On August 28, 1980, the GSIS Board of Trustees, in Board certain provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1146, particularly as
Resolution No. 583-80, adopted the following amendment to Section for whether or not elective public officials are covered by the GSIS
11 (c), Rule IV of the Implementing Rules for PD 1146, upon the for the duration of their term of office; whether or not a public
recommendation of the Committee on Gray Areas: officer or employee who is separated for cause or considered
“(c) Employees who were in the government service at the time of the resigned automatically forfeits his retirement benefits; and whether
effectivity of PD 1146 shall at the time of their retirement have the option to or not public officers and employees in the government service at the
retire under said Decree or under CA 186 as previously amended Provided, time Presidential Decree No. 1146 took effect have the option of
that in the event the member is reinstated in the service after having exercised retiring under the said Decree or Commonwealth Act No. 186, as
the option to retire under RA 1616 he shall subsequently be retireable under amended:
PD 1146 only.” WHEREAS, conflicting claims for benefits have invariably
been filed under the different laws administered by the GSIS, which
have oftentimes resulted in unnecessary litigation, delay and
inconvenience on the part of the rightful claimants.
 xxx As a re-employed member of the government service who is
WHEREAS, it has thus become necessary to amend Presidential retiring during the effectivity of RA 8291, petitioner cannot have his
Decree No. 1146 to clarify some of its provisions to165 previous government service with the DAR credited in the
computation of his retirement benefit. Neither can he choose a mode
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 165 of retirement except that provided under R.A. 8291.
All told, even if we find that the CA committed reversible error
Santos vs. Committee on Claims
when it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petition filed before it,
Settlement we see no reason to deviate from the findings of the GSIS. Hence, the
make it more responsive to the needs of the members of the GSIS instant petition must necessarily fail.
and to assure the actuarial solvency of the Funds administered by the WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
GSIS during these times of grave economic crisis affecting the SO ORDERED.
country.” (Italics ours)
With this legislative purpose in mind, the amendment of Section 13 of
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-
P.D. 1981, to include a proviso that in the event of re-employment of a Santiago,  Carpio and Corona, JJ., concur.
**

member his subsequent retirement shall be governed by P.D. 1146, shows the
clear legislative intent to withhold the availability of retirement option from Petition denied.
those who have been re-employed and are retiring for the second time. If the
intent was otherwise, then the said proviso should have also expressly stated
so and/or said proviso should not have been included at all.
Thus, the last proviso in Section 13 of P.D. 1146, as amended, granting
the right to change the mode of retirement within one year, may not be
considered as referring to the immediately preceding section, which is the
proviso stating that subsequent retirements shall be governed by P.D. 1146.
Such interpretation would only render both provisos inconsistent and
conflicting with one another and effectively meaningless because even if the
first proviso removes the option, the second proviso prescribes the period by
which the option may be exercised. It has been held that statutes must be
interpreted in such a way as to give a sensible meaning to the language of the
statutes and thus avoid non-sensical or absurd results (People vs. Duque, 212
SCRA 607; Automatic Parts and Equipment vs. Lingad, 30 SCRA 247, as
cited in Agpalo, op. cit., pp. 114-115). Thus, a better and more sensible
interpretation of Section 13 of P.D. 1146 as amended is that the last proviso
refers to the first part of the section which states to whom the option is given.
In other words, government employees who are in the service at the time of
the effectivity of P.D. 1146 have the option to retire under CA 186 or P.D.
1146 and if said option is exercised, they may change the mode of retirement
chosen or opted within one year from date of retirement. Once the retired
employees are however re-employed, they shall subsequently retire only under
P.D. 1146.”

Further, this Court notes that when petitioner formally applied for
retirement in 1998 R.A. 8291 which amended P.D. 1146 was already
in force and it was indubitably the law applicable to his second
retirement. In contrast, the examples of subsequent retirements of re-
employed government em-166
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
6 ANNOTATED
Santos vs. Committee on Claims
Settlement
ployees cited by petitioner were all prior to the effectivity of R.A.
8291.
Significantly, Section 3 of R.A. 8291 provides:
“SEC. 3. Repealing Clause.—All laws and any other law or parts of
law specifically inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly: Provided, That the rights under the existing laws, rules and
regulations vested upon or acquired by an employee who is already in the
service as of the effectivity of this Act shall remain in force and
effect: Provided, further, That subsequent to the effectivity of this Act, a
new employee or an employee who has previously retired or separated
and is reemployed in the service shall be covered by the provisions of this
Act.” (emphasis ours)

In addition, Section 10 (b) of P.D. 1146, as amended by R.A.

8291, states:
“(b) All service credited for retirement, resignation or separation for
which corresponding benefits have been awarded under this Act or other
laws shall be excluded in the computation of service in case of
reinstatement in the service of an employer and subsequent retirement or
separation which is compensable under this Act.”

As such, we find nothing objectionable in the following

provisions of the GSIS’ the Rules and Regulations Implementing
R.A. 8291 which provides:
“Section 8.6. Effect of Re-employment.—When a retiree is re-
employed, his/her previous services credited at the time of his/her retirement
shall be excluded in the computation of future benefits. In effect, he/she shall
be considered a new entrant.” (emphasis ours)

Additionally, Section 5.2 of the same implementing rules states

that all service credited for retirement, resignation or separation for
which corresponding benefits have been awarded shall be excluded in
the computation of service in case of re-employment. 167
VOL. 583, APRIL 2, 2009 167
Santos vs. Committee on Claims
Settlement