May I correct some information given in the reply of Ella Valencerina of the Government Service Insurance System (Inquirer, 7/17/09) to my letter (Inquirer, 5/27/09) on the pension claim of Nane C. Bacani.

1. She said ?Bacani is no longer eligible to receive the annuity pension benefit under Republic Act 660 due to the fact that she had already availed herself of the retirement benefit under RA 1616 known as ?take all? benefit,? thus insinuating that Bacani applied to be retired under RA 660. The truth: Bacani never applied to be retired under RA 660. We challenge GSIS to show any record that she applied for retirement under RA 660.

2. With her 33 years of service, Bacani applied to be retired under Sec. 1(b) of RA 1616 (per her letter dated July 16, 1985), which covers those with at least 30 years of service; GSIS retired her under Sec. 1(c) instead, which covers members with at least 20 years of service. We challenge GSIS to prove that Bacani applied to be retired under Sec. 1(c).

3. GSIS claimed that Bacani accepted, without any reservation, the return of her GSIS premium payments amounting to P26,694.91. The truth is, on July 4, 2005, Bacani, represented by P. B. Labrado & Associates, informed Teresita L. Rojas, GSIS Tacloban branch manager, through registered letter, that Bacani ?is not accepting the retirement benefits as approved under Sec. 1 (c) RA 1616? and expected the P26,694.91 paid to her to be deducted from whatever benefits she would receive under Sec. 1(b). We challenge GSIS to deny that the letter was not sent to its Tacloban branch.

4. GSIS said that Bacani?s acceptance of the returned premium was ?proof that she was amenable to the retirement benefits paid by GSIS under RA 1616,? implying that the return of premium payments was all the benefits due under RA 1616.

Sec. 1(b) provides that ?after rendering a total service of 30 years, regardless of age, the retiring employee [shall] receive a monthly annuity for life.?

Sec. 1(c) reads: ?the benefit, in addition to the return of his personal contributions plus interest, [shall] be only a gratuity equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, payable by the employer or office concerned ... not to exceed 24 months ...?

It is not that Bacani wanted to receive gratuity under Sec. 1(c)?she confirmed that she did not receive any?but it shows how GSIS grossly misread and misapplied the law in her case. We challenge GSIS to prove otherwise.

5. GSIS claimed that since Bacani ?had long retired from government service, her request for change of her mode of retirement cannot be given due course.? It was GSIS that committed the error; it is unconscionable for it not to admit the error and make proper amends to the affected member.

Now unable to afford a lawyer, Bacani prays that some kind lawyer would help her find justice. Bacani is now in pain, awaiting not pity from GSIS but fairness and justice. Maybe, with God?s help, she can find both before it?s too late.

?AMADO F. CABAERO,
authorized representative of Nane C. Bacani,
amacabsenior1@yahoo.com