Berdin v GSIS
life insurance policy. The beneficiary in a life insurance under the GSIS may not
Facts:
Jose Conseguera was employed as a shop foreman of the office of the District
Engineer in the province of Surigao Del Norte at the time of his death.
During his lifetime he contracted two marriages. First with Rosario Diaz with whom
he had two children who both predeceased him. And second, which was contracted
in good faith, with Basilia Berdin with whom he had 7 children.
When Conseguera died, the proceeds of his life insurance was paid to Berdin and
their 7 children as they were the beneficiaries named in the policy.
However, he did not designate any beneficiary in his retirement insurance benefits.
Rosario Diaz filed a claim with the GSIS for the retirement benefits. Berdin and her
children, likewise, filed a similar claim with the GSIS.
The GSIS ruled that Rosario is entitled to 8/16 or 1/2 of the benefits. And Berdin and
her children are entitled to theremaining half, each of them to receive an equal share
of 1/16.
Dissatified, they elevated the matter to the CFI of Surigao. The CFI of Surigao ruled
that: When two women innocently and in good faith are legally united in holy
matrimony to the same man, they and their children, born of said wedlock, will be
regarded as legitimate children and each family be entitled to one half of the estate.
The case was further elevated to the SC.
Petitioners argue that because the deceased Jose Consuegra failed to designate the
beneficiaries in his retirement insurance, the appellants who were the beneficiaries
named in the life insurance should automatically be considered the beneficiaries to
receive the retirement insurance benefits, to the exclusion of respondent Rosario
Diaz.
Issue:
WON the designated beneficiary in the employees life insurance is automatically the
beneficiary of the retirement benefits when there is no designated beneficiary in the
second benefit.
Held:
The proceeds of a life insurance are paid to whoever is named the beneficiary in the
necessarily be a heir of the insured.
The beneficiary of the retirement insurance can only claim the proceeds of the
retirement insurance if the employee dies before retirement. If the employee failed
or overlooked to state the beneficiary of his retirement insurance, the retirement
benefits will accrue to his estate and will be given to his legal heirs in accordance
with law, as in the case of a life insurance if no beneficiary is named in the insurance
policy.
Since the defendant's first marriage has not been dissolved or declared void the
conjugal partnership established by that marriage has not ceased. Nor has the first
wife lost or relinquished her status as putative heir of her husband under the new
Civil Code, entitled to share in his estate upon his death should she survive him.
Consequently, whether as conjugal partner in a still subsisting marriage or as such
putative heir she has an interest in the husband's share in the property here in
dispute.
And with respect to the right of the second wife, this Court observed that although
the second marriage can be presumed to be void ab initio as it was celebrated while
the first marriage was still subsisting, still there is need for judicial declaration of
such nullity. And inasmuch as the conjugal partnership formed by the second
marriage was dissolved before judicial declaration of its nullity, "the only lust and
equitable solution in this case would be to recognize the right of the second wife to
her share of one-half in the property acquired by her and her husband and consider
the other half as pertaining to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage."
Gamogamo v PNOC
Facts:
Petitioner Cayo Gamogamo was employed by the DOH from Jan 1963 to Nov 1977 for
a total of 14 years. After which he was hired by LUSTEVECO. PNOC acquired and took
over LUSTEVECO and petitioner was among those who opted to be absorbed by
PNOC. PNOC assumed without interruption petitioners service credit with
LUSTEVECO but it did not make reference to nor assumed petitioners service credits
with DOH.
PNOC undergone privatization on June 1993 which resulted to the downsizing of the
company. Due to the privatization, they implemented a program wherein retrenched
employees shall receive a two-month pay for every year of service. Sometime in 1995,
petitioner requested to be included in the next retrenchment schedule but was
denied since he was up for mandatory retirement on April 1995.
When PNOC changed their president, the new president approved the retrenchment
of two employees. Petitioner filed a complaint with the NLRC for the full payment of
 his retirement benefits. He alleges that his years of service with the DOH should be
included in his computed retirement benefits and that he was discriminated in the
retrenchment program
Petitioner maintains that his service with DOH should be recognized and tacked to
his length of service with PNOC because LUSTEVECO was bought by PNOC, and PNOC
itself was government owned and controlled corporations and therefore under the
Civil Service Law. Prior to the separation of respondent from Civil Service petitioners
service should be considered continuous.
Issue:
WON the totalization of petitioners years of service should be considered since his
two former employment were both government owned
Held:
The Court ruled that since the retirement pay solely comes from PNOCs funds, it is
but natural that they shall disregard petitioners length of service in another company
for the computation of his retirement benefits.
We cannot uphold petitioners contention that his fourteen years of service with the
DOH should be considered because his last two employers were government-owned
and controlled corporations, and fall under the Civil Service Law. Article IX(B),
Section 2 paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution states : Sec. 2. (1) The civil service
embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters. It is not at all disputed that while PNOC and LUSTEVECO are
government-owned and controlled corporations, they have no original charters;
hence they are not under the Civil Service Law.
RA 7699 reads: SEC 3. Provisions of any general or special law or rules and
regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, a covered worker who transfer(s)
employment from one sector to another or is employed in both sectors, shall have his
creditable services or contributions in both systems credited to his service or
contribution record in each of the Systems and shall be totalized for purposes of
old-age, disability, survivorship, and other benefits in case the covered employee
does not qualify for such benefits in either or both Systems without
totalization: Provided, however, That overlapping periods of membership shall be
credited only once for purposes of totalization.
Obviously, totalization of service credits is only resorted to when the retiree does not
qualify for benefits in either or both of the Systems. In any case, petitioners fourteen
years of service with the DOH may not remain uncompensated because it may be
recognized by the GSIS pursuant to the aforequoted Section 12, as may be
determined by the GSIS. Since petitioner may be entitled to some benefits from the
GSIS, he cannot avail of the benefits under R.A. No. 7699.
GSIS v Baradero and GSIS v CSC and Belo
Facts: (Belo)
From Jan 1972 - Dec 1979, Belo held office by virtue of an election and was paid a
fixed salary = paid per diem
From Dec 1979 - Feb 1988 she held the position of Vice Governor of Capiz in a hold
over capacity = paid a fixed salary
Facts: (Baradero)
Baradero was a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of La
Costellana, Negros Occidental between Jan 1976 - Oct 1978 = paid per diem
Arguments: (for both)
CSC argues that the service rendered by Belo/ Baradero while paid per diem should
be creditable for retirement purposes.
GSIS assails that under the GSIS law, per diem should not be included in computing
creditable service.
Issue:
WON the service rendered while paid per diem should be creditable for retirement
purposes
Held:
Per diem, as used under the GSIS law, is the daily allowance given each day to an
officer/employee of the government when he is away from his home base,
Per diem is considered compensation/ remuneration attached to an office when it is
received as the compensation rather than as a reimbursement for incidental
expenses.
the "per diem" she received was actually paid for in the performance of her duties as
Vice-Governor of Capiz in a holdover capacity not as the per diem referred to by
section 1(c) of R.A. No 1573 which amended Section 1(c) of C.A. No. 186
(Government Insurance Service Act).
It is plainly obvious that per diem as compensation, is not what the law contemplates.
The clear intent of the Government Insurance Law was to exclude those extra
incidental expenses or incurred on a daily basis covered by the traditional definition
of the term per diem. An important fact missed from our earlier decision was that,
while respondent Belo was paid on a per diem basis during her first holdover period
as Vice Governor she was subsequently paid a fixed salary, which apparently rectified
an otherwise anomalous situation. The services rendered by respondent Belo having
been continuous, the disputed period should be credited for purposes of retirement.
 The situation as far as private respondents and the GSIS are concerned could be
rectified by deducting a reasonable amount corresponding to the contributions
which should have been deducted during the period from the amount of retirement
benefits accruing to them. It would be grossly inequitable as it would violate the
spirit of the government retirement and insurance laws to permanently penalize
both respondents Belo and Baradero by ignoring the fact of actual period of service
to government with compensation, and deny them the retirement privileges that they,
for their unselfish service to the government justly deserve.
GSIS v Cuanang
Facts:
Carmen Cuanang, deceased wife of the respondent, was a former teacher in the
Division City of Manila. On Nove 9, 1998, she applied for early optional
retirement after completing almost 26 years of government service.
From September 14 to September 18, 1997, Carmen Cuanang was confined at the
University ofthe East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center, for Bronchial
Asthma and Pneumonia, Rheumatic Heart Disease (RHD) and Mitral Stenosis.
She filed a claim for sickness benefits under PD 626 The GSIS awarded her
Temporary Total Disability benefits from Nov 14-25, 1998. She was subsequently
granted Permanent Partial Disability 9 months after.
On May 7, 2000 Carmen Cuanang died at the age of 65. The immediate cause of her
death was determined to be Cardio Pulmonary Arrest with Acute Myocardial
Infarction as the antecedent cause, and Bronchial Asthma and Hypertension as
underlying causes.
Respondent filed a claim for death benefits with the GSIS. His claim was denied on
the ground that Death due to Myocardial Infarction is not compensable under PD
626.
The ECC affirmed the denial by the GSIS.
The CA however, overturned the decision of the ECC and ordered GSIS to pay
respondents claim for death benefits under PD 626.
Petitioner contends that the ailments which brought about the death of respondents
wife, Carmen Cuanang, do not fall within the ambit of the coverage of PD 626,
considering that when they occurred she had long retired from government service.
Issue:
WON the resulting death of Carmen Cuanang is compensable under Presidential
Decree No. 626
Held:
A claim for benefit for such death cannot be defeated by the mere fact of separation
from service.
When the deceased joined the government service on October 1, 1972, she was in
perfect health. It was only in 1997, while she was still in the service, that her
condition started to worsen.
Myocardial Infarction, also known as coronary occlusion or just a coronary, is a life
threatening condition. Predisposing factors for myocardial infarction are the same
for all forms of Coronary Artery Disease, and these factors include stress. It is of
common knowledge that the job of a teacher can be very stressful. Carmen Cuanangs
responsibilities were never limited to the four corners of the classroom. Aside from
teaching students, she also prepared lesson plans, attend seminars, conferences and
other school activities, within and outside the school premises, such as tree planting
for the beautification of the school premises and the community, sportsfest programs
and parades, year after year throughout her almost 26 years in government service.
This law abandoned the presumption of compensability and the theory of
aggravation under the Workmens Compensation Act. For the sickness and resulting
disability or death to be compensable, the claimant must prove that: (a) the sickness
must be the result of an occupational disease listed under Annex A of the Rules on
Employees Compensation, or (b) the risk of contracting the disease was increased by
the claimants working conditions.
Notwithstanding the abandonment of the presumption of compensability established
by the old law, the present law has not ceased to be an employees compensation law
or a social legislation; hence, the liberality of the law in favor of the working man and
woman still prevails, and the official agency charged by law to implement the
constitutional guarantee of social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of
the employee in deciding claims for compensability
The claim of Teodosio Cuanang for compensation benefits for the death of his wife,
Carmen Cuanang, is GRANTED.