Correct error in Bacani case, GSIS chief asked
This is a request for Mr. Robert Vergara, president and general manager of the Government Service Insurance System, to take another look at the case of Nane C. Bacani, who was unilaterally retired by GSIS under Sec. 1(c), Republic Act 1616, and given back only P26,694.91, representing all her premium payments plus interest. Having served in government for 33 years, she should have been retired under RA 1616’s Sec. 1(b), and thus qualified for lifetime pension.
Several letters regarding this case, sent to Winston Garcia when he was still GSIS president, remain unanswered. In those letters, we pointed out that GSIS is duty-bound to check the correctness of the retirement mode a retiree has chosen; and if an incorrect mode had been chosen, it is incumbent upon GSIS to apply the right one.
On July 29, 1985, Bacani applied in writing to retire under RA 1616 but did not indicate—obviously because she did not know—Sec. 1(b) as her choice. She was then told by GSIS Tacloban branch manager Alfonso Saniel to choose Sec. 1(c) on the official retirement application form. That choice was later confirmed by area manager Estrella Colasito as the mode applicable to Bacani. Thus GSIS unilaterally retired Bacani under Sec. 1(c). Subsequent efforts to convince GSIS to correct its error and retire Bacani under Sec. 1(b) were brushed off for reasons disproved by GSIS’ own records.
Recently, we came across a report dated Dec. 9, 2008, which was submitted by GSIS’ own legal officer Jose Pierre Llanto, who reviewed Bacani’s case. It stated partly as follows:
“In checking the mode of retirement chosen by retiring employees, it was incumbent upon the GSIS to verify the correctness of the choice to insure that the employee chose the applicable mode of retirement.”
Having found support in the findings of GSIS’ own legal officer, we now request GSIS to change Bacani’s retirement mode and accordingly make the proper amends: payment to her of full benefits under Sec. 1(b), plus all increases made in GSIS pensions from 1985 to the present, plus interest or a reasonable compensation for the delay and a reasonable amount for damages.
Please note that the Office of the President intervened in 2010, resulting in GSIS paying Bacani on Nov. 8, 2010—but again incorrectly under PD 1146—a lump sum of P300,651.14 representing her accrued pension from Sept. 1, 1988 to Nov. 30, 2010 at P1,249.05 per month. That payment did not include pension for the 37 months in retirement, when she was not yet 60 years old—from July 31, 1985, when she retired, to August 1988. But this is now beside the point, for Bacani is now claiming full benefits under Sec. 1(b).
With Mr. Vergara in command of GSIS, we hope Bacani will not need to take any other step to find justice. We look forward to GSIS paying Bacani the rightful benefit, less the amount she had already received under PD 1146. We would appreciate a direct reply from Mr. Vergara.
—AMADO F. CABAERO,
Philippine Association of Retired Persons
