SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 186560 : April 11, 2012] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. FERNANDO DE LEON.

Sirs/Mesdames: Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 April 2012 which reads as follows:
cralaw

G.R. No. 186560 (Government Service Insurance System v. Fernando de Leon). - For the Court's resolution is the Manifestation and Motion1] dated June 8, 2011 filed by respondent Fernando P. De Leon (De Leon), on the matter of Government Service Insurance System's (GSIS) computation of his retirement benefits under our Decision[2] dated November 17, 2010 and Resolution[3] dated April 13, 2011. On November 17, 2010, this Court rendered its Decision affirming with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 101811 declaring that the respondent is entitled to a monthly pension in accordance with applicable law. The Decision's dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated October 28, 2008 and the Resolution dated February 18, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 101811 are hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Government Service Insurance System is ORDERED to (1) pay respondent's retirement benefits in accordance with P.D. No. 1146, subject to deductions, if any, computed from the time the same were withheld until April 7, 2010; and (2) pay respondent's retirement benefits in accordance with R.A. No. 910, computed from April 8, 2010 onwards. In order that respondent may not be further deprived of his monthly pension benefits, this Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. SO ORDERED.[4] A motion for reconsideration filed by GSIS was resolved by this Court in its Resolution dated April 13, 2011, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The Court REITERATES the directive in its November 17, 2010 Decision, for the Government Service Insurance System to pay respondent's retirement benefits in accordance with P.D. No. 1146, subject to deductions, if any, computed from the time the same were withheld until April 7, 2010. From April 8, 2010 onwards, respondent is entitled to receive benefits under R.A. No. 910, in relation to R.A. No. 10071, from the Department of Justice. The GSIS is further DIRECTED to comply with this Resolution forthwith and without any further delay.

SO ORDERED.[5] In the Manifestation and Motion now pending action, the respondent avers that on May 24, 2011, he received from GSIS a check amounting to P189,014.01, which was claimed by GSIS to be the net amount of his retirement benefits under the aforequoted issuances of this Court. GSIS' computation indicates that the respondent's gross pension benefits for the period covering the year 2002 to April 7, 2010 total P329,160.33, but it deducted from this amount the following sums: (1) P44,071.17 representing the return by the respondent of the premium contributions previously refunded to him by GSIS, and (2) P96,075.15 for the interest of 12% per annum assessed on the said premium, computed from October 1992 to November 17, 2010.[6] Through the Manifestation and Motion dated June 8, 2011, the respondent asks that the GSIS be ordered to waive and pay to the respondent the amount of P96,075.15 deducted from his benefits as interests on the premium, considering that the return of his premium contributions was not by his fault but the petitioner's, which he further claimed had allowed this case to pend instead of acting favorably upon his claim. The respondent likewise questions the GSIS' claim for interests on the premium contributions, but not granting the same in favor of the respondent for the pension benefits from 2002 to 2010 to which he was declared rightfully entitled. On August 23, 2011, the petitioner filed its Comment[7] on the Manifestation and Motion, seeking the motion's denial for having been filed without leave of court and for lack of merit. GSIS claims that the imposition of the 12% interest was in accordance with the agency's policy on returned premiums and the mandate of GSIS to invest its funds for an income. As to its denial of the respondent's claim for interest on the pension benefits, GSIS argues that it was not obliged to pay the same until the time that the matter was finally resolved by the Court. This Court resolves to admit the Manifestation and Motion, as it appears to seek only a clarification of the decision we have earlier rendered in this case. In the interest of substantial justice, the queries made in the said manifestation and motion need to be addressed by this Court, so as to ensure and effect a proper implementation of this Court's rulings. On the first issue raised by the respondent, we agree with his contention that GSIS should not have deducted from his pension benefits the amount of P96,075.15, supposedly as 12% per annum interest from October 1992 on the premium contributions of P44,071.17 previously returned to him by GSIS. Significantly, the return of these premium contributions was merely imposed by GSIS upon the respondent who, on the contrary, insisted on the continued payment of his monthly pension by GSIS. In addition, there could have been no delay on the part of the respondent considering that GSIS had neither previously claimed nor demanded for the premiums' return by the respondent, and the latter's obligation to return them was not established until this. Court rendered its decision in this case. There is then no justification as to why the respondent should be the one prejudiced, or obliged to compensate GSIS through the payment of the computed interests. As to GSIS' allegation of an existing policy that would justify the imposition of the interest, we note that GSIS failed to substantiate said allegation.

GSIS' claim of estoppel on the part of the respondent for receiving the check, allegedly without questioning the deductions made, fails to persuade. Instead of failing to act promptly on the matter, the respondent immediately sought a remedy from this Court through the filing of the manifestation and motion on June 8, 2011, barring any estoppel that could have led the petitioner to believe that the respondent had acceded to GSIS' computation. In addition, it does not appear that GSIS will be unjustly harmed if the principle of estoppel will not be applied against it. The doctrine of estoppel is based on the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. Since estoppel is based on equity and justice, it is essential that before a person can be barred from asserting a fact contrary to his act or conduct, it must be shown that such act or conduct has been intended and would unjustly cause harm to those who are misled if the principle were not applied against him.[8] We, however, clarify that the respondent is not entitled to his claim for legal interest on his monthly pension from the year 2002. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case and the discretion granted to courts in awarding interests to obligations not constituting loans or forbearance of money, this Court dispensed with an award of interest in favor of any party. The retirement law applicable to the respondent's case, as well as the specific amount of the parties' respective obligations and claims, were not established until this Court rendered its decision on the petition. The respondent even signified his preference to claim retirement benefits under Presidential Decree No. 1146 only in his comment to this petition. In the guidelines laid down by this Court in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[9] reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ong,[10] on the imposition of interest and applicable rates when an obligation does not constitute a loan or forbearance of money, we explained: 2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. 3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.[11] (Underlining and emphasis supplied) The interest to which respondent De Leon is entitled shall then only pertain, to that provided in item no. 3 stated above, which is 12% per annum from the finality of the Court's award until satisfaction thereof. For the parties' guidance, the imposition of this interest shall, however, be

inapplicable to the deductions to which GSIS is entitled, considering that the time of their satisfaction does not depend upon the respondent, but entirely upon the time when GSIS pays the respondent's retirement benefits.
cralaw

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court NOTES the respondent's manifestation in its Manifestation and Motion dated June 8, 2011. The motion is PARTLY GRANTED, in that petitioner Government Service Insurance System is ordered to return to the respondent the amount of P96,075.15, which it had deducted from the respondent's gross pension benefits as interest on the returned premiums. The award to respondent De Leon under this Court's Decision dated November 17, 2010 and Resolution dated April 13, 2011 shall be subject to the legal interest of 12% per annum only from the time this Court's rulings became final and executory until full satisfaction thereof. SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON Deputy Division Clerk of Court Endnotes:
[1]

Rollo, pp. 171-177. Id. at 108-125. Id. at 159-163. Id. at 123-124. Id. at 162. Id. at 172, 178-179. Id. at 186-195.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Rockland Construction Company, Inc. v. Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation, G.R. No. 164587, February 4, 2008, 543 SCRA 596, 603. (Citation omitted)
[9]

G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78. G.R. No. 190755, November 24, 2010, 636 SCRA 266. Id. at 282-283.

[10]

[11]