decision - gsis.gov.ph · constantino-david (david), then chairperson of the civil service ... of...

,;

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GOVERNMENTSER~CEINSURANCESYSTEM

FINANCIAL CENTER AREA, PASAY CITY METRO MANILA 1308

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

In the Matter of the Petition for Violation of R.A. No. 8291 against Patricia Sto. Tomas et al.

GSIS Case No. 010-04 JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR.,

Petitione~

}(-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}(

DECISION

Before this Board is a Petition filed by JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR.

on 01 July 2004 seeking to hold the respondents liable for violation

of Republic Act No. 8291 for the alleged non-remittance of his GSIS

premiums for the period from October 2002 to June 2004 and to

recover damages from them as well as attorney's fees and costs of

suit.

THE FACTS

The factual antecedents of this case are as follows:

1. In his letter dated 02 May 2002, petitioner Jose M.

Espafiot Jr. (Espafiol), then Undersecretary of the Department of

Labor and Employment (DOLE), requested then DOLE Secretary,

respondent Patricia A. Sto. Tomas (Sto. Tomas), for his voluntary

placement in the Career E}(ecutive Service Office (CESO) Pool.

2. Petitioner's request was approved by respondent Sto.

Tomas on 24 May 2002. Accordingly, in her letter dated 31 May

of20 In the Matter of the Petition for Violation of

R. A. 8291 against Partricia Sto. Tomas, et al. GSIS Case No. 010-04

2002, respondent Sto. Tomas communicated to respondent Karina

Constantino-David (David), then Chairperson of the Civil Service

Commission that the petitioner "is hereby returned to the Career

Executive Service Pool effective June 1, 2002."

3. Respondent David, in her letter dated 03 June 2002,

acknowledged receipt of the letter of respondent Sto. Tomas with

regard to petitioner's placement in the pool effective 01 June 2002

stating that:

It is understood that the salaries, benefits and allowances of Usee. Espaiiol, Jr. shall be shouldered by DOLE for the first three (3) months. Thereafter, his salaries, benefits and allowances shall be sourced from the pool fund.

The esc and the CESB shall exert efforts to find a new placement for Usee. Espaiiot Jr. within the six month period of his detail to the CES Pool. If no placement is found, the Chairperson of the CSC/CESB shall accordingly evaluate his performance for the said period.

4 . Despite the approval of his detail to the CESO Poot

petitioner was not able to report to the CESO Pool allegedly because

of the COMELEC BAN owing to the 15 July 2002 Barangay Elections

which was in effect from 31 May to 30 July 2002 and his purported

detail to the Office of the President (OP) effective 01 August 2002, as

Chairman, Committee on Micro-Economic Affairs, reporting to the

Presidential Liaison Officer for Political Affairs (PLOP A).

5. In his letter dated 01 August 2002, then PLOPA

Secretary, Jose Ma. A. Rufino, advised respondent David of



petitioner's detail to the PLOPA as head of the Micro-Economic

Affairs Office.

6. In response thereto, respondent David, in her letter to

Secretary Rufino dated 13 August 2002, pointed out, however, that

petitioner's "detail" to the Micro-Economic Affairs Office (MAO) was

considered a transfer to a co-terminus position, thus:

Please be informed that Usee Espanol is currently assigned to the CES Pool since 31 May 20021• Pursuant to the CSC and CESB joint Circular No. 1, series of 2002, "Guidelines for the Administration of the Career Executive Service Pool", the CESB Chair, as Pool Administrator exercises supervision over CESOs placed in the CES Pool. Any assignment of CESOs outside the pool needs the approval of the Pool Administrator. However, taking into consideration the urgency of Usee Espanol's services as head of the Micro-Economic Affairs Office, he may need to submit a request for his transfer to the said office, if he chooses to accept the said assignment.

We wish to clarify that the "detail" of Usee Espanol from the CES Pool to the MAO-PLOP A is considered as a transfer to a co-terminus position. Should such transfer take effect, he loses his CES rank and position at DOLE.

7. In his letter to respondent David dated 14 August 2002,

however, Secretary Rufino commented that, in the case of petitioner

Espaiiol, the request was limited to "detail" because there was no

available plantilla in their Office and what was approved by then

President Arroyo was the creation of a Committee on Micro-

Economic Affairs and the assignment to head the same did not need

a new appointment.

1While 31 May 2002 was the date of the letter of respondent Sto. Tomas to respondent David, the effectivity of petitioner's transfer to the pool was 01 June 2002.


R. A. 8291 against Partricia Sto. Tomas, et al. GSIS Case No. 0 I 0-04

8. Petitioner contended that his so-called detail with the OP

was in accordance with the guidelines for the administration of the

CES Poot relying chiefly on Section IV, 5(d.1) of CSC-CESB joint

Circular No.1 which provides:

d.l DETAIL

• Detail involves the temporary movement of a CESO from one department or agency to another, which does not involve reduction in rank, status or salary .

• The detail of the CESO to the receiving agency shall be for a minimum of 6 months (equivalent to one performance rating period) up to a maximum period of one year. During this period, the detailed CESO shall receive salary from his/her mother unit or agency. Detail beyond one year may be allowed provided that it is with the consent of the CESO.

• During the prescribed period of detail, the mother agency can only appoint an OIC to the post temporarily vacated by the CESO placed in the pool.

XXX XXX XXX

9. Since neither the DOLE nor the CESO pool paid him his

salaries, allowances, benefits and correspondingly his GSIS,

Philheath, Pag-lbig and other social security contributions beginning

October 2002, petitioner filed a Complaint with the OP dated 20

October 2003, docketed as OP Case No. 03-L-706, against "Patricia

A. Sto. Tomas, Amuerfina Reyes and Violeta Munoz or the

Department of Labor and Employment, and Karina Constantino-

David, in her capacity as Administrator of the Career Executive

Service Pool, or the Civil Service Commission" for the alleged non-

payment of his salaries, allowances and benefits.

10. In his Complaint, as amended, petitioner propounded the

following question:



A CESO Officer was detailed to the CES pool then to Malacaiiang. Who is now the "mother agency" responsible for the payment of the detailed CESO officer's salary, allowances and benefits? The DOLE, the CES pool or Malacaiiang?

11. Notably, the petitioner did not include the OP itself as a

respondent in the case because according to him, petitioner's detail

to PLOPA was supposedly without compensation from the OP since

"no plantilla was available" at the time. Petitioner expressly reserved

the right to prosecute actions for the non-remittance of his GSIS

contributions under existing laws. Later on, by way of Motion and

Manifestation dated 30 June 2004, petitioner moved to remove the

remedy of damages from his prayer before the OP.

12. A Computer Print-Out was issued to the petitioner by

GSIS showing that as of 07 June 2004, his premiums had not been

remitted to the GSIS beginning October 2002. It is alleged by the

petitioner that in not remitting his GSIS contributions, respondents

messed up his service record because his application for salary loan

could not be acted upon for want of an agency that could certify and

guarantee collection of monthly payments.

13. Hence, the present Petition praying that the GSIS Board

render judgment:

a. Declaring as grossly erroneous and criminal the non-r emittance of petitioner 's GSIS premiums;

b . Directing the immediate remittance to the GSIS of petitioner's full GSIS contributions in the amount of P133,790.58 plus interest and



penalties by the respondents, jointly, severally or individually, by way of actual damages;

c. Ordering all respondents, jointly and severally to pay the petitioner P250,000.00 each, as moral damages;

d. Ordering all respondents, jointly and severally to pay the petitioner P250,000.00 each as nominal damages;

e. Ordering all respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the petitioner P200,000.00 as attorney's fees plus reimbursement of lawyer's appearance expenses of P2,500.00 for every appearance in court or administrative/quasi judicial tribunal; and

f. Directing respondents to pay all the costs of suit.

14. As expressly stated in this Petition, all the respondents

are being sued "in their personal capacity". The respondents were

impleaded as indispensable parties being "the heads of the DOLE

and CSC-CESB at the time (referring to respondents Sto. Tomas and

David, respectively) and the personnel (referring to the other

respondents) of such agencies who are involved in the collection and

remittance of premium contributions, loan amortization and other

accounts due the GSIS", supposedly as provided under Section 52 (g)

of R.A. No. 8291.

THE ISSUES

Brought before this Board are the following issues:

1. Whether petitioner's GSIS premiums from October 2002

to June 2004 have been paid and remitted to the GSIS by the proper

agency concerned.

. _. Page 7 of20 In the Matter of the Petition for Violation of


2. Whether the respondents are responsible for the

remittance of petitioner's GSIS premiums to the GSIS from October

2002 to june 2004.

3. Whether the respondents can be held liable in their

personal capacity for the non-remittance of petitioner's premium

contributions to the GSIS.

4. Whether the GSIS Board has jurisdiction over a claim of

damages and over the person of the respondents.

DISCUSSION

I. Whether petitioner's GSIS premiums from October 2002 to june 2004 have been paid and remitted to the GSIS by the proper agency concerned.

In his early Memorandum dated 26 August 2004, then Vice

President of Social Insurance Operations I, Robert M. Agustin,

stated:

Except for a few months, Mr. JOSE M. ESPANOL, Jr. made payments for his compulsory premiums (personal & Government Shares) as remitted by his office, from July 1997 to September 2002 only.

The few months (October - November 1997, February 1998, December 2000, September- December 2001) wherein no payments were reflected in our database are still being reconciled by our Payments posting Group. (Emphasis supplied)

of20 In the Matter of the Petition for Violat ion of

R. A. 8291 against Partricia Sto. Tomas, et al. GSIS Case No. 01 0-04

However, after efforts to improve the posting of premium

remittances and reconcile the accounts of its members were

undertaken by the GSIS in the succeeding years, a later

Memorandum dated 28 March 2008 issued by then Acting

Department Manager of the Billing Reconciliation and Collection

Department V (BRCD V), Robert C. Luistro, indicated:

Per verification from our records, Usee. Jose M. Espaiiol has several gaps in his premium payments for the period Jan-Sept. 2003.

For the said period, Mr. Espaiiol received his salaries from the Office of the President and not from the Department of Labor and Employment. As per certification issued by the Office of the President, deductions for GSIS premiums were deducted from his salaries.

We will coordinate with the Billing, Reconciliation and Collection Department III for the verification of the agency (OP) remittance as well as the posting of premiums. (Emphasis Supplied)

The Memorandum of the then BRCD V Acting Department

Manager attached a computer print-out sourced from the mainframe

as of 07 March 2008 indicating that for the period in question (i.e,

October 2002 to June 2004), petitioner's Premium (Personal and

Government Shares) and Employees' Compensation Contributions

for the months of October to December 2002 and October 2003 to

june 2004 have already been paid as evidenced by GSIS Official

Receipt No. 002147346 dated 01 February 2007. A copy of the

mainframe printout is attached as Annex "A".

On the other hand, with respect to the "gap" from january 1 to

September 30, 2003, a Certification issued by Teresita P. Valdellon,

Department Chief Accountant of the Accounting Office of the Office


R. A. 8291 against Partricia Sto. Tomas, et aL GSIS Case No. 01 0-04

of the President (copy of which was attached to the Memorandum of

the Acting Manager, BRCD V), so declared "that Usee. JOSE M.

ESPANOL received salaries, allowances and other legal entitlements

from the Office of the President covering the period january 1 to

September 30, 2003" and that the amount of P24,573.78 for GSIS

premiums was deducted from his salaries for the period. A copy of

the OP Certification is attached as Annex "B". Despite the promise

to coordinate with BRCD III, however, no further communication was

received from BRCD V that would indicate that petitioner's premium

contributions for the period from january 1 to September 30, 2003

were remitted to the GSIS.

A print-out of petitioner's premium remittances under the SAP

(the present database being used by the GSIS which replaced the

mainframe) revealed that premiums for the months of October to

December 2002 and October 2003 to June 2004 have been paid and

remitted to the GSIS. However, the premium contributions earlier

certified to by the Office of the President as having been deducted

from petitioner's salary for the period from January 1 to September

30, 2003 still have not been remitted to the GSIS. A copy of the SAP

printout is attached as Annex "C".

It bears noting that petitioner's services with the OP are not

reflected in petitioner's Membership Service Profile (MSP). Under

our present database, the petitioner appears to have served the

DOLE as "DE DIR V" up to 31 March 1996 and then as "USEC"

" . Page 10 of20

In the Matter of the Petition for Violation of R. A. 8291 against Partricia Sto. Tomas, et al.

GSIS Case No. 010-04

continuously from 01 April 1996 to 29 July 2004. A copy of the

petitioner's MSP is attached as Annex "D".

In sum, the data appearing in GSIS' present database show

that GSIS premiums of the petitioner for the months of October to

December 2002 and October 2003 to June 2004 were paid and

remitted to the GSIS, while premiums from january to September

2003 were not. Nevertheless, based on the Certification of the

Accounting Office of the OP, it is clear that it is the OP that should

have remitted the petitioner's premium contributions to the GSIS for

the period from January 1 to September 30 2003. In line with this, a

machine copy of GSIS Official Receipt No. 001670113 dated 10

November 2004, certified to by Cristina A. Guarin, Division Chief,

Payroll and Voucher Division, was obtained from the OP Accounting

Office together with a Statement of Life and Retirement Insurance

Premiums Arrearages showing that in the OP's payment of

P1, 735,122.51, the amounts of P24,573. 78 and P32, 765.04

corresponded to petitioner Espa:fiol's personal and government

shares, respectively, for the months of january to September 2003. A

copy of the set of documents from the OP Accounting Office is

attached as Annex "E".


R. A. 8291 against Partricia Sto. Tomas, et at. GSIS Case No. 010-04

II. Whether the respondents are responsible for the remittance of petitioner's GSIS premiums to the GSIS from October 2002 to June 2004.

Under Section 5 of R. A. No. 8291, the mandatory monthly

contributions to be paid by the employer and the employee are

expressed as percentages of the employee's monthly compensation,

thus:

SECTION 5. Contributions. - (a) It shall be mandatory for the member and the employer to pay the monthly contributions specified in the following schedule:

Monthly Compensation

I. Maximum Average Monthly Compensation (AMC) Limit and Below

II. Over the Maximum AMC Limit - Up to the Maximum AMC Limit - In Excess of the AMC Limit

Percentage of Monthly Compensation Payable by

Member

9.0%

9.0% 2.0%

Employer

12.0%

12.0% 12.0%

Section 6 of R. A. No. 8291 further provides that the employer

shall deduct from the monthly salary or compensation the

contribution to be paid and remit the same to the GSIS, thus:

SECTION 6 . Collection and Remittance of Contributions. - (a) The employer shall report to the GSIS the names of all its employees, their corresponding employment status, positions, salaries and such other pertinent information, including subsequent changes therein, if any, as may be required by the GSIS; the employer shall deduct each month from the monthly salary or compensation of each employee the contribution payable by him in accordance with the schedule prescribed in the rules and regulations implementing this Act.

(b) Each employer shall remit directly to the GSIS the employees' and employers' contributions within the first ten (10) days of the calendar month following the month to which the contributions apply. The remittance by the employer of the contributions to the GSIS shall take priority over and above the payment of any and all obligations, except salaries and wages of its employees.



From the above-cited provisions of law, it is clear that with

GSIS contributions being a percentage of compensation, the entity

obligated to pay the salary or compensation of the employee

concerned is also the entity charged with the obligation to deduct

from said salary or compensation the contributions payable by the

employee and remit the same directly to the GSIS. Such being the

case, the determination of who is responsible to remit petitioner's

premium contributions cannot be divorced from the determination of

who should pay his salary for the period in question. Considering

that the question of whether it should have been the DOLE, the CSC

or Malacafiang which should pay petitioner's salaries beginning

October 2002 was squarely raised in his Complaint before the OP in

OP Case No. 03-L-706, the findings of the OP should prove to be

instructive in determining the entity responsible for the remittance

of petitioner's GSIS premium contributions.

In its Decision in OP Case No. 03-L-706 dated 04 August 2004

(copy attached as Annex "F"), the OP dismissed the Complaint,

holding, among others, that neither the DOLE under then Secretary

Sto. Tomas nor the CSC-CESB under then Chairperson David could

be obligated to pay petitioner's salary beginning October 2002, thus:

As earlier recited, complainant himself requested to be placed in the Pool effective June 1, 2002. Sec. Sto. Tomas acceded to this request. The Secretary forthwith formalized -and Ms. David acknowledged on June 3, 2002 - the transfer under the following arrangements, among others, to wit: (a) the salary, benefits and allowances of Mr. Espafiol for the first three (3) months salary shall, pursuant to Section III(4) of the Guidelines for the Administration of the CESPool, be shouldered by DOLE and by the Pool fund thereafter; and (b) the CSC and CESB shall exert effort to find a new placement for him within the six-month period of his stay in the Pool.

of20 ln the Matter of the Petition for Violation of

R. A 8291 against Partricia Sto. Tomas, et at. GSIS Case No. 0 I 0-04

There can be no quibbling that DOLE faithfully complied with its part of the arrangement. There is also no dispute that Mr. Espaftol did not return to and was not returned to DOLE six (6) months following his voluntary placement in the Pool. Be that as it may, DOLE's and/or its Secretary's disclaimer of liability appears to rest on solid legal ground. On the other hand, the Pool Fund, and with more reason Ms. David, cannot plausibly be made to answer for any and all claims of Mr. Espaftol since he had never effectively placed himself under the Pool. As earlier stated, Mr. Espafiol reported only to the CESB briefly on June 2, 2002. He did not thereafter report to CESB, let alone secure its approval of his detail to, or acceptance of other position, if any. In net effect, the inability, if it can be described as that, of Mr. Espafiol to collect his salary and other benefits from October 2002 and beyond is clearly not attributable to the wrongful act of Sec. Sto. Tomas et al/ and/or DOLE. We need not belabor the reason why this conclusion applies with more vigor to the Pool, Ms. David and CSC.

XXX XXX XXX

... For as earlier stated, DOLE's obligation to pay his salary, allowances and other benefits ceased three months after his placement in the Pool effective June 2, 2002. Mr. Espaii.ol was fully apprised of this fact.

On the other hand, the CESB's refusal to pay from the Pool Fund Mr. Espaii.ol's claim for salary and allowances and/or to remit the required contribution to GSIS and other agencies from June 2, 2002 and onwards can hardly constitute an actionable constructive dismissal imputable to Ms. David. For, to a redundant point, CESB obligated itself to pay Mr. Espaftol salary and allowances only during his detail to the Pool, an event which did not actually materialize since he never reported to the Pool.

Upon the foregoing perspective, it behooves this Office to dismiss the instant complaint. This is not to say that the claim under consideration or a component thereof is entirely devoid of basis, it being established that claimant rendered service under a color of title during the period covered by his claim. However, the factual and legal situation leaves no room for another kind of disposition. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the above Decision

but in its Resolution dated 07 january 2005 (copy attached as Annex

"G"), the same was denied with finality by the OP.



There is no cogent reason to deviate from the finding of the OP

that neither the DOLE or the CSC/CESB/CESO pool was liable to pay

petitioner's salaries from October 2002 onwards, i.e., during his

"detail" with the OP. As far as the DOLE is concerned, we agree with

the OP that the DOLE fulfilled its obligation to pay petitioner's salary

for the first three (3) months of his detail to the CESO Pool. With

regard to the CSC-CESB-CESO Pool on the other hand, we likewise

agree with the OP that the CSC-CESB-CESO Pool should not be held

liable to pay for petitioner's salary from October 2002 onwards

because petitioner himself admitted that he never reported to the

pool.

Going now to petitioner's so-called "detail" with the OP,

reliance of the petitioner on Section IV, 5(d.1) of CSC-CESB joint

Circular No. 1 is unavailing vis-a-vis the clarification expressed by

respondent David in her letter dated 13 August 2002 to then PLOPA

Secretary Rufino stating that, the "detail" of Usee Espanol from

the CES Pool to the MAO-PLOPA is considered as a transfer to

a co-terminus position. Should such transfer take effect, he

loses his CES rank and position at DOLE.

All told, if the OP did not hold the DOLE and/or respondent

Sto. Tomas or the CSC-CESB and /or respondent David liable to pay

petitioner's salary from October 2002 onwards, neither should the

same respondents, including the other officials of the DOLE

impleaded herein, be held responsible for the remittance of


R. A. 8291 against Partricia Sto. Tomas, eta!. GSIS Case No. 010-04

petitioner's premium contributions to the GSIS for the period in

question.

Put more simply, because the respondents were not the

employers of the petitioner during the period from October 2002 to

june 2004, they should not be held liable considering that the

employer is the one responsible for the remittance of premiums.

III. Whether the respondents can be held liable in their personal capacity for the non-remittance of petitioner's premium contributions to the GSIS.

A public official may be held liable in his personal capacity

for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with

malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or

jurisdiction. 2

In this case, as it has been shown that neither the DOLE nor

the CSC-CESB were responsible in remitting petitioner's premium

contributions to the GSIS for the period in question, it is clearly not

the obligation of the respondents to cause the remittance. Having no

legal obligation to do so, no malice or bad faith can be attributed to

the respondents for the non-remittance of petitioner's premium

contributions to the GSIS.

2 See for instance, Vidad vs. RTC ofNegros Oriental, Br. 42,227 SCRA 271, October 18, 1993; M.H. Wylie vs. Rarang, 209 SCRA 357, May 28, 1992; Orocio vs. Commission On Audit, 213 SCRA 109, August 31, 1992.

.::

·.

Page 16 of20 In the Matter of the Petition for Violation of


In the absence of malice and evident bad faith, the respondents

cannot be held liable in their personal capacity for the non-

remittance of petitioner's premium contributions.

IY. Whether the GSIS Board has jurisdiction over a claim for damages and over the person of the respondents.

The first paragraph of Section 30 of R. A. No. 8291, otherwise

known as the GSIS Act of 1997, states that, "[ t]he GSIS shall have

original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising under

this Act and any other laws administered by the GSIS."

More specifically, Section 14.1, Rule XIV of the Implementing

Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R. A. No. 8291 (now Section 27, Rule

V of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations) provides:

RULE XIV Adjudication of Claims and Disputes

SECTION 14.1 Quasi-judicial Functions of the GSIS. The GSIS shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising under Republic Act No. 8291, Commonwealth Act No. 186, as amended, and other laws administered by the GSIS with respect to:

(1) Coverage of government agencies and employees;

(2)Entitlement of members to the following benefits under these Rules:

(a) Separation benefits (b) Unemployment or involuntary separation

benefits (c) Retirement benefits (d) Disability benefits (e) Survivorship benefits (f) Funeral benefits (g) Life Insurance benefits



(3) Collection and payment of contributions;

( 4) Criminal actions arising from this Act; and

(5) Any other matter related to any or all of the foregoing which is necessary for their determination.

While the aforecited provisions give the GSIS the original and

exclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes involving the collection and

payment of contributions and criminal actions arising from R. A. No.

8291, nowhere in the law is the GSIS empowered to pass upon a

claim for recovery of sums of money or for damages such as those

prayed for in this case. Neither does the petitioner point to any

specific provision of law that empowers the GSIS to grant the reliefs

prayed for.

It should be noted that the GSIS does not have jurisdiction over

claims for damages against non-GSIS personnel. GSIS only has

jurisdiction over its own personnet officers and employees. The GSIS

does not have jurisdiction over government employees who are not

under its employ, such as the respondents in the case. Such being

the case, with respect to the collection of unpaid premiums or

contributions in its favor, even the GSIS would have to initiate the

necessary action before the courts of proper jurisdiction. Section 41

(w) of R. A. No. 8291 provides:

(w) to ensure the collection or recovery of all indebtedness, liabilities and/or accountabilities, including unpaid premiums or contributions in favor of the GSIS arising from any cause or source whatsoever, due from all obligors, whether public or private. The Board shall demand payment or settlement of the obligations referred to herein within thirty (30) days from the date the obligation becomes due, and in the event of failure or refusal of the obligor or debtor to comply with the demand, to initiate or institute the necessary or proper actions or suits, criminal, civil or administrative or otherwise,



before the courts, tribunals, commissions, boards, or bodies of proper jurisdiction within thirty (30) days reckoned from the expiry date of the period fixed in the demand within which to pay or settle the account; (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner's attempt therefore to collect from the respondents

actuat moral and nominal damages, attorney's fees plus cost of suit

is properly cognizable by the regular courts depending on the

amount involved.

With regard to criminal actions under R. A. No. 8291, it bears

pointing out that petitioner has specifically reserved the right to file

a criminal action against the respondents. This is but proper

considering that under Section 52(g) of R. A. No. 8291:

(g) The heads of the offices of the national government, its political subdivisions, branches, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and government financial institutions, and the personnel of such offices who are involved in the collection of premium contributions, loan amortization and other accounts due the GSIS who shall fail, refuse or delay the payment, turnover, remittance or delivery of such accounts to the GSIS within thirty (30) days from the time that the same shall have been due and demandable shall, upon conviction by rmal judgment, suffer the penalties of imprisonment of not less than one ( 1) year nor more than five ( 5) years and a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (PlO,OOO.OO) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), and in addition shall suffer absolute perpetual disqualification from holding public office and from practicing any profession or calling licensed by the government.

The last paragraph of Section 52 of Republic Act No. 8291

reiterates that "Criminal actions arising from violations of the

provisions of this Act may be commenced by GSIS or by the

aggrieved member, either under this act or, in appropriate cases,

under the Revised Penal Code."

DECISION


R. A. 8291 against Partricia Sto. Tomas, eta\. GSIS Case No. 0 I 0-04

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Petition is

hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Pasay City, Philippines, ___ 2 _5_A_U_G_2_0_11 __

/':)/ D~. LACSON, Jr.

RO ERTG.~ ice Chainnan

Chainnan

KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID* Trustee

FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III* Trustee

• Did not participate in the deliberation and approval of this Decision

~~~ RIOT. rustee

(CNIFAVE) DANILO A. GOZO

Trustee

Copy furnished:

JOSE M. ESP ANOL, JR. 11 Amesbury St., Gov. Hills Subdivision 4604 General Trias, Cavite3

JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR. Bahay Ugnayan, Malacaiiang Complex J.P. Laurel St., San Miguet Manila4

OFFICE OF THE CORPORATE SECRETARY GSIS Board of Trustees

3 Last known address per GSIS records 4 Address appearing in the Petition



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Board Resolution No. 198-A of September 15, 2004, t ALEXEI P. CARDENAS, Legal Officer IIt GSIS Law Office, having been assigned to review the records and to prepare a draft decision in Board of Trustees Case No. 010-04 entitled In the Matter of the Petition for Violation of R.A. No. 8291 against Patricia Sto. Tomas et al. hereby certify that the statement of facts herein stated and being presented before this Board is accurate and true, and are entirely based on the records of the case, the pleadings and other documents submitted by the parties.

This certification is issued in compliance with Board Resolution No. 198-A adopted on September 15, 2004.

____ , Pasay City.

EXEIP.CARDENAS Hearing Officer

.. ~. . • (..;(.~~I: F' ., '

~?~VER~1ENT SERVICE INSURANC~ SYSTEM hi:~ bl..IL..~tl·~ POL.. ICY PF~EJ•IJ UJ•J P p, YJ•JJ:_:J.,J"T· .·r "Jr:.ll .. l. ·r 1~ .. ''( .f::.,·.·.-,l ... f-.J(.-.1 ),' ( ...... , •. , ,. ') ')0 ~ ,.. . I' 1: • • .>~. '·· •· U .:;,:HVL:>:r. f··f(W·u;;: :: ESP,:~,f,lOL ·r( .. ,'t::· .•. , .... ltT)·r· () ··· '· _, .. r. ..

"· >:> .. ... ;: •• ,)/'04/ 1 9~i>:? Ef'lf'f··IO ll (."JI:~I:·c:r) ',', MATX)"l-·.1 • l51900003 03/04/2007 PLAN : E65 TOTPY;

Pt.,GE :: 1'"1 ,:r

DEPT :: :1. NUI•fF''Y ::

1/

() :1. ,.;_,

JDATEn 01/01/2007 C * * * p A y , DUEDTE ORDATE ORNUM PT T P.S. G.S. HAZARD

1''1 ,... N T * * * 76 062002 06282002 001462001

J:;:tJ J:c J , :?~'!.if>, ::~'l:> 77 072002 07302002

78 082002 09122002 r;:o n :1. .. 7:?6 .. )'6

79 092002 10112002

00:1. ::J47B9l! :::1 ,, ~=~f$ :J. If~)>()() n ':)>~?

r8m 102002 02012007 002147346 RO B 1.726.76 3.640.56

IDNO : 42073100768 * * * ~ OKOK PROCESSING COMPLETE

OuOO

0.()()

0 ~ 00

o.oo

o .. oo

E.C.

:':>o. oo

:"::10 .. ()0

:·:w.oo

:·:w.oo

~:-~()" 00

TDTt..t ...

!;,, If ::1 9 :"l fl ~':) ~-:~

t:: ... " (' )"""/ ''."1 1' ., ,,t,,,,,\,l ·' "\.,\,t:.

~;_:, ,, ::J ~;> ::"~ " :·:;~:::

:·:·; '4 :·:~ ~:_:, \~) If l,. l

~-~ ·~ ::~{s>:?,. ::-s:c·:~

* * * DPCODE u r.~,f'),JI ... 03/07/ 2008 11~00~29

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM r;:EGUI...(.~,n POLICY PF~EI'"IIUJvJ Pt~YJ•·IEJ·.rr II,IGlUJFo .. 4:? ~::~ .• ,Y:JO .. ~-'·6

'

:•l1• -1 ·1 ·:·orY'i n~-'O"' '"'0•')7 (.)0 .. ·.·.> ..... ~~..-.YJt: .• , ;''t :i .i. , . . c .. ,, '· ' ·· ' · .c .. '· .1 .. c .. ,, ,, . " .1 ••1 o .. oo

F;: 0 B 2 " "? ~:;o " f.};:~ :::; ., 6l.} 0 H ~-'• f.) 0 .. 00 ff~l~ t~=~~=~oo::~ o~:~o:r.:;·::oo7 oo~-=:1t.~7:"::\l.lb

() .. ()()

0 * * * EDNO : 42073100768 .{, 01 :7 u :·:-; ~·:: !:.:, '• :·:; ~;> :? " :·:) ~c·:~ ~ .. :IE I...

c.,.,t.loo .. s>n \1:- , ,:~ () i:) " ~;> ~=~ f~,".TEJ...

6 .• 400 .. 9B 6" l.}()() .. 9B A.JEJ...

6 .. lWO .. 9E< ,1>" 400 H 9B (·,.:YEL.

* * * DPCDDE :1 1-')fi:>,JJ... 03/07/2008 11=0.1.~01

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYST~M REGULAR POLICY PREMIUM PAYMENT INQUIRY P~~,GE :: ,·>,:• t'>'":·() ·1 ··:.()()··;· ( , ~~·' - Oo 0 ° oCjo \, \, ' \o ,(,, \o o • ,(,, • o ,I

F;:o n :;:: .. ·?:Jo .. . q:;:' (I)"''" ') •-, ,., ') '") ' I () ,., '') 'l '''•()() ''?

f\~;~:.r ,,, .c: .• c:.\. \.. 1'1' • . c:.•, ... c:.,, . ·'

1:;: (j I< ~;:: ,. '? ~:-, () ., L! ~·::

I:OI··IU :: ,:r;;~o7:J:I.OO"i'6B

* * * OF;:I··II...II'1 [i, ~=> ..

~·:·~ f( \1)'·~ () u ~:.;, f.~ ()()~':': :J.l! ~?::Jlll>

:·:·; 'C \1;),.;'~() u ~)t:;\

:·:·) 1( (:) I..J () ,, !:_:,l> oo:? :1.4 7::>ll6

* * * ~ OKOK PROCESSING COMPLETE t=~~~~,J P I

p y

l··lt,z(:,r~n

0 .. 00

0 .. 00

(>.,()()

OnOO

0 .. 00

TOTPY::

T

E .. C ..

:·:·w .. oo

:·:.; () .. () ()

:::;o .. oo

:·:)() .. ()()

:':)() .. 00

s * * * TOTt~tl ... OPEl:;:

6 .. K100.,90 6 ~ l.j()() .. 9B (.:,;JEI...

6 .. l-100 .. 9B 6,.400 .. 9B {~,;JEI...

6 .. l .IOO .. B (.~,,JEI...

,;, , l.~ (} () ff ~;> f3 f> .. t.W0 .. 9B r-),JEI...

,-:) .. t~OO .. 9B 6 ,,1..100 .. 98 ~~,;JEI...

* * * DPCDDE a l~,p .. JJ... 03/07/2008 :1.:1.~01~04

GD'·,JI:::r

'· .

C.)

\\ ~1

FRIJt-1 DOLE-HRDS FAX NO. 672 5273568 AI1V/-e.y ~

.. -,.-.-

MAR. 28 2B08 02: 18PM P2

f)~( (l~)

~:t [flce of tbe ~rc£lll.1 1~nt of tbc ~{Jttipptne5

.:flllillAcailnncr 2 (' [" ·~ j ';) J ••• Jl l) .f.:

ACCOUNTING OFI?ICE.__· --....-.--.....-.-..... -~ __ ....,......,__ ..... _ . .. ~

C E R 'I'

/ . ~·~, .

This u~ tc certify that Usec./JOSE· i\1. ES.PAN.OL received salaries, allowances and. oth:!r legal . entitlements from the · Office of ·the President ·

. I

covering tb pedod J:Lnuary 1 to~-September 30, 2003·. ; • r

S. laric3- - -- - ·-- --- :_---- - --- - ---- ~ - --- P 27~,042.00 P" R.A- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · : - - . -l - - - - 4,500.00 A d'l Comp!:·nsation - - - - - - - · - - - - ·· - - - _:- - ~ - 4,500.00 C )thit:.g Allowance - -. ·· ---- - -- -- ·-- -- ~ - - -- 4,000.00 C .:;h C·lft - - - - -- - - - - ~ • - .- - - - .- - - - - - - ~ - - - - 2,000.00 R .TA - - -- • - - - - - - - '- - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - :.. - - - - - 102,600.00

L :3S: Oedt1ctions: I GSlS Premiums--- - -- - -P 24,~173.78 ; ::=>ag-ibig- ~ - - - - - -·- - - ~ - 900.001

.?hHHealth -- - - ·---- -- - 1,125.00

390,642.00 I

\:Vi thholding tax - -- - - - - _-_4.:....:9:..1., .::...l =1Q>:;.!.'=8=:-1: _ _ _ 7..:....;5:::..~,c...:..7..:::.0.::..,9_~· 5~9

N ;-r p 314,932.41 vvyvvvvw.

certificat. ·::m is issued upon request for whatever lo~E:c; purpose it I ' may serve:. I

I I I I

.r 1

i f

! f

f ~

I , (l/! aM,.l' I I

TERES:~A P. ,lfl{oELLON. ~~ D~partmont Chtef Accountant _ ~

rn .. D& bTII~IIT m: I t\BI)R A~t. EHP.LO~

'~ If A~~!( ~c

ESPANOL! JOSE Month PSR Paid GSR Paid PSR Ideal GSR Ideal Sal: for Service Rendered Percentage/Month . RCS/Year

29.00 03/31/1980 102.44 121.07 102.44 121.07 1,862.55 1.00000000 0.07945205 30.00 04/30/1980 109.51 129.42 109.51 129.42 1,991.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1980 109.51 129.42 109.51 129.42 1,991.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/1980 109.51 129.42 109.51 129.42 1,991.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31,00 07/31/1980 109.51 129.42 109.51 129.42 1,991.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1980 109.51 129.42 109.51 129.42 1,991.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1980 109.51 129.42 109.51 129.42 1,991.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1980 109.51 129.42 109.51 129.42 1,991.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1980 109.51 129.42 109.51 129.42 1,991.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1980 109.51 129.42 109.51 129.42 1,991.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1981 127.11 150.22 127.11 150.22 2,311.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1982 140.42 165.95 14D.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31,00 05/31/1982 14D.42 165.95 14D.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1982 140.42 165.95 140.42 165.95 2,553.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1983 163.02 192.66 163.0i 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 3t.OO 10/31/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1983 163.02 192.66 163.02 192.66 2,964.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1984 165.00 202.15 165.00 202.15 3,110.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 29.00 02/29/1984 165.00 202.15 165.00 202.15 3,110.00 1.00000000 0.07923497 31.00 03/31/1984 165.00 202.15 165.00 202.15 3,110.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 04/30/1984 165.00 202.15 165.00 202.15 3,110.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 05/31/1984 165.00 202.15 165.00 202.15 3,110.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 06/30/1984 165.00 202.15 165.00 202.15 3,110.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31,00 07/31/1984 165.00 223.67 165.00 223.67 3,441.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 31.00 08/31/1984 165.00 223.67 165.00 223.67 3,441.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 09/30/1984 165.00 223.67 165.00 223.67 3,441.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 10/31/1984 165.00 223.67 165.00 223.67 3,441.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 11/30/1984 165.00 223.67 165.00 223.67 3,441.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 12/31/1984 165.00 223.67 165.00 223.67 3,441.00 1.00000000 0.08469945

31.00 01/31/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 ' 06/30/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1985 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31,00 01/31/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31,00 07/31/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31,00 08/31/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 3Q,OO 09/30/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30,00 11/30/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1986 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1987 165.00 235.04 165.00 235.04 3,616.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 18.00 05/31/1990 165.00 644.44 165.00 644.44 9,914.52 1.00000000 0.04931507 30.0Q 06/30/1990 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.66 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.06219178 31.00 07/31/1990 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1990 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1990 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1990 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1990 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1990 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1991 165.00 1,109.68 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.06493151 28.00 02/28/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30,00 04/30/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1991 165.00 1, 109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 ~1.00 08/31/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30,00 09/30/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30,00 11/30/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31,00 12/31/1991 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 29.00 02/29/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.07923497 31.00 03/31/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 04/30/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 05/31/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 06/30/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 07/31/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 31.00 08/31/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 09/30/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 10/31/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 11/30/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 12/31/1992 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 31.00 01/31/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151

30.00 04/30/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31 .00 05/31/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30,00 06/30/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1993 165.00 1,109.88 165.00 1,109.88 17,075.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/ 1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1994 165.00 1,155.38 165.00 1,155.38 17,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/ 1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/ 1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1995 165.00 1,220.38 165.00 1,220.38 18,775.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1996 165.00 1,285.38 165.00 1,285.38 19,775.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 29.00 02/ 29/1996 165.00 1,285.38 165.00 1,285.38 19,775.00 1.00000000 0.07923497 31.00 03/31/1996 165.00 1,285.38 165.00 1,285.38 19,775.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 04/30/1996 165.00 1,428.25 165.00 1,428.25 21,973.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 05/31/1996 165.00 1,428.25 165.00 1,428.25 21,973.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 06/30/1996 165.00 1,428.25 165.00 1,428.25 21,973.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 07/31/ 1996 165.00 1,428.25 165.00 1,428.25 21,973.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 31.00 08/31/1996 165.00 1,428.25 165.00 1,428.25 21,973.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 09/30/1996 165.00 1,428.25 165.00 1,428.25 21,973.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 10/31/1996 165.00 1,428.25 165.00 1,428.25 21,973.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 11/30/1996 165.00 1,428.25 165.00 1,428.25 21,973.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 12/31/1996 165.00 1,428.25 165.00 1,428.25 21,973.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 31.00 01/31/1997 165.00 1,526.66 165.00 1,526.66 23,487.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1997 165.00 1,526.66 165.00 1,526.66 23,487.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1997 165.00 1,526.66 165.00 1,526.66 23,487.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1997 165.00 1,526.66 165.00 1,526.66 23,487.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1997 165.00 1,526.66 165.00 1,526.66 23,487.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/1997 165.00 1,526.66 165.00 1,526.66 23,487.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1997 700.00 2,231.27 700.00 2,348.70 23,487.00 0.96148194 0.08166011 31.00 08/31/1997 700.00 2,231.27 700.00 2,348.70 23,487.00 0.96148194 0.08166011 30.00 09/30/1997 700.00 2,231.27 700.00 2,348.70 23,487.00 0.96148194 0.07902591 30.00 11/30/1997 0.00 2,375.00 700.00 2,500.00 25,000.00 0.74218750 0.06100171 31.00 12/31/1997 480.20 2,500.00 700.00 2,500.00 25,000.00 0.93131250 0.07909777 31.00 01/31/1998 700.00 2,500.00 700.00 2,500.00 25,000.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 03/31/1998 700.00 2,546.37 700.00 2,546.37 25,463.71 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1998 700.00 2,562.50 700.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1998 700.00 2,562.50 700.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08493151

·.

30.00 06/30/1998 700.00 2,562.50 700.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1998 700.00 2,562.50 700.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1998 700.00 2,562.50 700.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1998 700.00 2,562.50 700.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1998 700.00 2,562.50 700.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/1998 700.00 2,562.50 700.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1998 700.00 2,562.50 700.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/1999 770.00 2,562.50 770.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/1999 770.00 2,562.50 770.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/1999 770.00 2,562.50 770.00 2,562.50 25,625.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/1999 770.00 2,632.60 770.00 2,632.60 26,326.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/1999 770.00 2,632.60 770.00 2,632.60 26,326.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/1999 770.00 2,632.60 770.00 2,632.60 26,326.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/1999 770.00 2,632.60 770.00 2,632.60 26,326.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/1999 770.00 2,632.60 770.00 2,632.60 26,326.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/1999 770.00 2,632.60 770.00 2,632.60 26,326.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/1999 770.00 2,632.60 770.00 2,632.60 26,326.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30,00 11/30/1999 770.00 2,632.60 770.00 2,632.60 26,326.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/1999 770.00 2,632.60 770.00 2,632.60 26,326.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 29.00 02/29/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.07923497 31.00 03/31/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 04/30/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 05/31/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 06/30/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 07/31/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 31.00 08/31/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 09/30/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 10/31/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 31.00 12/31/2000 840.00 2,889.30 840.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 31.00 01/31/2001 980.00 2,889.30 980.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/2001 980.00 2,889.30 980.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 ~1,00 03/31/2001 980.00 2,889.30 980.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/2001 980.00 2,889.30 980.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/2001 980.00 2,889.30 980.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 3p.oo 06/30/2001 980.00 2,889.30 980.00 2,889.30 28,893.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31,00 07/31/2001 980.00 3,033.80 980.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/2001 980.00 3,033.80 980.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/2002 1,120.00 1,900.92 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 0.72726660 0.05977534 31:00 10731720011;120:00 '-:3;03'4~8lJ 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 . 11/30/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08219178

- ---D3t.oo 12/31/2002 1,120.00 3,033.80 1,120.00 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 -'31.00 10/31/2003 2,123.66 3,033.80 2,123.66 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151

30.00 11/30/2003 2,123.66 3,033.80 2,123.66 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/2003 2,123.66 3,033.80 2,123.66 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/2004 2,123.66 3,033.80 2,123.66 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 29.00 02/29/2004 2,123.66 3,033.80 2,123.66 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.07923497 31.00 03/31/2004 2,123.66 3,033.80 2,123.66 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 04/30/2004 2,123.66 3,033.80 2,123.66 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 05/31/2004 2,123.66 3,033.80 2,123.66 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08469945

_ __ __.30.00 06tJOt200Ll,.l23.6Ll..Q33.BO 2,123.66 3,033.80 30,338.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 07/31/2004 2,088.36 2,983.37 2,088.36 2,983.37 29,833.68 1.00000000 0.08469945

31.00 08/31/2004 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 09/30/2004 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 10/31/2004 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 30.00 11/30/2004 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08196721 31.00 12/31/2004 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08469945 31.00 01/31/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 2!3.00 02/28/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30,00 06/30/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 07/31/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/2005 1,576.47 2,252.10 1,576.47 2,252.10 22,521.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 01/31/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 28.00 02/28/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.07671233 31.00 03/31/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 04/30/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 05/31/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 06/30/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 ~l.QO 07/31/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 31.00 08/31/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 09/30/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 10/31/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08493151 30.00 11/30/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08219178 31.00 12/31/2006 1,705.13 2,435.90 1,705.13 2,435.90 24,359.00 1.00000000 0.08493151

L5' !;:!SP Q•Jio f!aports Ststam !:!alp

a

~ CRISTINA A. GUARJN Divlaion Chief PayroU and Voucher Divisio1•

i t < . :: .. : . " .. ·- I • ~ .. .. "' ~-

;; .. ·· i9{j~Q13W1~ycF. 't~·E"RH14iP.PINEiS •i.

GQVEnNMtNT SERVICt 'N$URR~Ce $VSTEM fJNA~~lAk · Q~NTER~ ~~A~AY alTY

NO.' · gQ01~7Q11~ PAT~ 1111Q/04

8:Q7;QQ

• . . I .. =~;::):.!:

-. ... ~'; - -- t !__,;.' . .__ •. _:.._.. __ ~. '• .~~-.

J_;l:R \ lf\tU lllUf &OP·) - \

~I

Office of the President CRIS11NA A. GlJ;l..RJlil l)lvi'iiml Oticf . . . ,

ACCOUNTING OFFICE . S 11 ~ v ro.)Cher DJV\SlOl: P.ayto. "

STATEMENT OF LIFE AND RETIREMENT INSURANCE PREMIUM -\ TOTAL ARREARAGES

SEP 04 \ NOV \ DEC -

JUN 04 I JUL 04 I AUG04 I -I BASIC I I JAN 04 I MAR04 1 APR04 I MAY04 I 2,340.0§.. OFFICE SALARY SAU PERIOD FEB 04 I ~~.399.~ ~ .5~1.28 \ 82S.n 1,188.5~

ZOLETA, RAFAEL M. 16,792.00 9,208.52 2,279.97 2,279.97

941.3~ EXCONDE, FIDEL J. JR. 25,333.00 25,333.00 2,279.97 2,279.97 2,279.97 1,188.51 435.~ REYES, MARIA LEAH IMELDA E. 17.799.00 13,205.70 941.38 810.00 ~RIOS, MERCY B. 14,098.00 10,459.80 435.50 810.00 235.5j_ ~ ., ELTON L. 6,522.00 4,838.90 117.75 312.10

DIZON, RAMON G. 9,000.00 9,000.00 117.76 31.4l. CONFIADOI, SULPICIO M. 1,308.40 1,300.00 56.25 56.25

56.25 3,638.25 RAFANAN, MARCELA- SAL DIF 625.00 342.74 30.85 56.25 56.25 31.47 3,638.25 1,268.lg_ ENRILE, EDWIN I SAL, DIFF 349.70 349.70 347.01. TIGLAO, RIGOBERTO D. 40.425.00 40,425.00 1,268.82 233.9~ -NUALDA. VIRGINIA G. 14,098.00 14,098.00 113.18 -FLORES, FRESE - SAL DIFF 2,599.00 1,257.58 24.573.7 ~

2,730.42 2,730.42 2.279.97 3,723. ~

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 2003 2.730.42 2,730.42

1,443.98 -ESPANOL, JOSE 30,338.00 30,338.00 2.730.42 2,730.42 2.730.42 2.730.42 2.730.42 2,279.97 745,978. 76 ESPINOSA, MARIO K. 25,333.00 16,044.20 17,972.31 1,443.98 -62,075.70 63,2'35.34

82,268.59 -TOTAL PERSONAL SHARE: 19,646.23 62,649.75 101,795.17 176,775.83 155,835.89 -2,89 8.7j_

GOVERNMENT SHARE 3.71 3~ - 3,24 O.OQ_

E5 ... JAN, GENARO JR 6,039.00 6,039.00 724.68 724.68 724.68 724.68 2,17 4.Qi_ 742.68 DIAl, REYNALDO M. 6,189.00 6,189.00 742.68 742.68 742.68 742.68 2,1 20.79_ BALAGT AS, KENNETH M. 9,000.00 9,000.00 1,080.00 1,080.00 1,080.00 5 ,953.~ DIANOPRA, PABLO 6,039.00 6,039.00 724.68 724.68 724.68 2.439.3.§__ GUMARANG, ENGELBERT 6,522.00 4,628.50 555.42 782.64 782.64 1,264.20 1.420_M.. RIVERO, JENNIFER T. 10,535.00 7.476.45 897.17 1,264.20 1,264.20

1,264.20 233.~ JIMENEZ, JERICO 5,082.00 5,082.00 609.84 609.84 609.84

609.84 1,691.76 TATING, ERWIN T. 11,837.00 11,837.00 1,420.44 7,367.3~ LEBARDO, RONALD P. -SAL 01 1,039.00 904.93 108.59 124.68 I 1,04?§ TURINGAN, ENRICO Ill 14,098.00 14,098.00 1,691.76 \ I CLOSA, SHERWIN M. - 01/21/200 14,098.00 5,002.52 600.30 1,691.76 1,691.76 1,691.76 1,691.76

RECCION, RANDY C.- 03/10-31/( 5,082.00 3,606.58 432.79 609.84 -

l1 r: K II rn::u I KUI: \,Ur '

A M F

Office of the President V1"( , • - -1.V

CRJSTINA A. GUARIN ACCOUNTING OFFICE Division Oief ·

STATEMENT OF LIFE AND RETIREMENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS hnoU and Voucher Divisi£111 ARREARAGES

OFFICE BASIC

SAUPERJOD JAN 04 FEB 04 MAR04 APR04 MAY04 JUN 04 JUL04 AUG04 SEP04 NOV DEC "TOTAL SALARY

ESPANOL JOSE - 01-09/2003 30,338.00 30,338.00 3,640.56 3,640.56 3,640.56 3,640.56 3,640.56 3,640.56 3,640.56 3,640.56 3,640.56 32,765.04 ESPINOSA, MARIO K. -11"-12/03 25,333.00 16,044.20 1,925.30 3,039.96 4,965.26

TO.TAL GOV'T. SHARE: 25,929.69 83,373.99 ~ ~

135,483.05 235,701.11 206,025.86 82,452.28 83,915.57 109,025.60 22,271.33 1,925.30 3,039.96 989,143.75

' -· GRAND TOTAL PS & GS: 45,575.92 140,023.74 237,278.22 412,476.94 361,861.75 144,527.97 147,150.91 191,294.19 40,243.64 3,369.28 5,319.93 1,735,122.51

AMOUNT TO BE REMITIED : 1,735,122.51 .

Certified Correct :

TERESITA P. VALDELLON Prepared by: Department Chief Accountant PERLA ST A. ANA

P-oe 18of18

. .

JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR., Complainant,

-versus-

PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, ET AL., Respondents,

x- - - - - - - - - - - - -·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

OP CASE No. 03-L-706 .

This resolves the complaint of Jose M. Espanol, Jr. (Espanol or complainant, hereinafter), CESO I, dated 20 October 2003, as amended, against Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas and two (2) other officials of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), namely Human Resource and ·Service Director Amuerfina Reyes and Administrative Director Violeta Munoz and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chairman Karina C. David (''David", hereinafter)/ in her capacity as Administrator of the Career Executive Service (CES) Resource Pool (''CESO. Pool" or "Pool", for brevity), arising from the alleged omission of individual respondents to pay complainant his salaries and allowances, and for depriving him of certain benefits and employment amenities. Impleaded as alternative respondents are DOLE and esc.

From _the parties' pleadings and their annexes, this Office gathers the following facts:

In March 2002, Sec. Sto. Tomas informed CES Board (CESB) Chairman David of her intention to transfer Espaiiol, then Undersecretary of DOLE, to the CESO Pool. While initially oppos~d, Mr. Espaiiol would himself later request - and Sec. Sto. Tomas ~~uld acce?e to, his placement in the Pool effective May 31, 2002 (Annex "A" and A-1 , Complaint). On June 1, 2002, Sec. Sto. Tomas issued DOLE Administrative Order ~o. 138, s. 2002, advising Mr. Espaiiol to clear himself of all accountabilities. She also Informed Ms. David about Espanol's return to the CES Pool effective June 1, 2002. In her response letter of June 3, 2002, David explained the respective obligations of DOLE and: CES~/Pool respecting the salary, allowances and other benefits of Espanol once deta1fed w1th the Pool.

~JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR., -versus-PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, ET AL. no r11c~: ~'" n-,_, .,nc: Page 1 of 7

Meanwhile, Sec. Sto. Tomas, responding to Presidential Uaison Officer for Political Affairs (PLOPA) Jose Ma. Rufino's request for Mr. Espanol's detail to the Office of the PLOPA (OPLOPA), informed the PLOPA that Mr. Espanol is with the Pool. She thus suggested that he (Sec. Rufino) discuss with Ms. David arrangements for the desired detail (Annex "4", Sto. Tomas' Answer).

Owing to the July 15 2002 Barangay Elections and the consequent ban on certain personnel movements, Sec. _Sto. Tomas sought and the COMELEC gave its approval to the transfer, detail or reassignment of certain DOLE personnel effective May 31, 2002 (Annex "8", Sto. Tomas' Answer).. In the list to be detailed to the CES Pool was Mr. Espanol.

Except for a fleeting appearance in the morning of June 2, 2002 at the CESS, Espanol did not report to the Pool for the entire month of June, and from July to October 2002. He, however, filed a leave of absence with CESS covering the month of

. July 2002 and for August 5-9 and 12-13, 2002. Meanwhile, Sec. Rufino wrote Ms. David reiterating his request for Mr. Espanol's detail to OPLOPA effective August 1, 2003. In her letter-response of 13 August 2002, Ms. David clarified that a detail of one assigned to the CES Pool would require the Pool Administrator's approval, adding that if Mr. Espanol opts to accept the OPLOPA assignment, "he may need to submit a

. request for his transfel'. Ms. D?Jvid also stated that the "detail' of Mr. Espanol outside the Pool, ·or "from the CES Pool to MAO PLOP A is considered as a transfer to a coterminous position [and that] should such transfer take effect· he loses his CES rank and position at DOLE " (Annex "G", Complaint)

Subsequently, Ms. David advised Mr. Espanol 1) to report to the Pool since his approved August 2002 leave had expired, and 2) to submit a request to transfer to OPLOPA failing which he shall be deemed as still part of" the CESQ. Pool, subject to performance evaluation by the Pool Administrator. (Annex "11", Sto. Tomas' Answer).

In a November 27, 2002 l~tter, Ms, David directed Mr. Espanol to show cause why he should not be dropped from the rolls, having been absent without leave since August 15, 2002 (Annex "S", Complaint). Evidently unbeknownst to Ms. David, the PresideQt issued a memorandum under date July 31, 2003 detailing_ Mr. Espanol to the Office of the President (OP), with a directive to report to OPLOPA .for instructions. As Ms. David asserted in her letter of 24 February 2003 (Annex "A", David's Comm.ent), to the President, she was not furnished a copy of this memorandum early on, and as records seem to suggest, _came to know of the above presidential memo only in January 2003.

Related developments show Mr. Espanol claiming payment of his salary, allowances and benefits corresponding to the months of October 2002 to December 2002, which respondent Munoz forwarded to CESS. Attached to the forwarding document was Mr. Espanol 's letter inquiring by what authority impelled Ms. Munoz to stop proc;:essing his clflim.

OSE M. ESPANOL, JR., -versus-PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, ET AL. n o r11c:~ "'" n~-1 _7nt:.

Page 2 of 7

' .

Meanwhile, Sec. Sto. Tomas wrote Ms. David that Mr. Espanol - who has not been returned to DOLE since his placement to the Pool, tiad been replaced. As Sec. Tomas explained, the replacement was effected on the assumption that Mr. Espanol is no longer connected with DOL~.

It is basically upon the foregoing backdrop that Mr. Espaiiol instituted his complaint against Ms. David and Sec. Sto. Tomas eta!., it being his posture that individual respondents effected his constructive dismissal and, as articulated in his "Reply to Answer", they "maliciously"'' malevolently' and "oppressively' deprived him of his property rights (at p. 15)_. In his amended complaint as supplemented by subsequent pleadings, Mr. Espanol prays that his constructive dismissal be declared ill~gal. He also prays for payment of actual losses and damages in the form of unpaid salaries, allowances, fringe benefits and reimbursement for transportation and communication expense from October 2002 in the total sum of Php777, 609. 30 plus 12% interest per annum. In addition, he demands· payment of attorney's fees, moral damages (partly for the death of his mother), nominal, and exemplary damages. Appended as Annex "T", "T-1" and "T-2" to the complaint, as amended, are disbursement vouchers for salaries, benefits and allowances allegedly due Mr. Espafiol for the period Octobet 2002 to December 2003. A repair for a Honda car, gasoline expenses, and cell card are among the items listed in the voucher. A certification from one Oscar Oresca stating that he had been hired by and personally paid Mr. Espafiol from May to November 2003 was appended to the complaint. •

To the original complaint, Sec. Sto. Tomas, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Munoz, in compliance with this Office's order, jointly filed an answer disclaiming their and/or · DOLE's liability for unpaid salary and unremitted contributions and for damages sought by complainant and praying for the dismissal of the complaint for reasons

· detailed _ thereat. On the other hand Ms. David, as Administrator of CESO Pool, filed her comment, likewise urging the dismissal of the complaint on, inter alia, jurisdictional ground, it being her contention that she holds the position of CESO Pool Administrator by virtue of her being chairman of the independent esc. Apart from tagging the July 31, 2002 detail memorandum as legally infirm, Ms. David asserts that Mr. Espanol's plight is the result of confluence of events and circumstances that he had a hand in bringing about.

On February 16, 2004, Mr. Espanol moved for issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction to enjoin DOLE from further withholding his salary and other benefits, a motion Sec. Sto. Tomas eta!., would, in time, oppose.

What followed was the filing by Mr. Espanol of "Reply to Answer" and "Reply to Comment", theh Sec. Sto. Tomas' "Rejoinder To the Reply" and then the former's "Surrejoinder". On July 8, 2004, complainant manifested his intention to withdraw h-is claim for moral and exemplary da_mages.

This case revolves around two (2) main issues. The first is the tenability of Mr. Espanol's demand for a sum of money against individual respondents in their personal capacity. In this regard, Mr. E~panol stated that in par. 5.4 of his "Motion for

SE M. ESPANOL, JR., -versus-TRICIA STO. TOMAS, ET AL. - ~ .-.- .. ,..._ . _...,.,.

Page 3 of 7

4 • . • •

Issuance of Writ of Prelimina·ry Injunction" that - "x x x Respondents herein are being sued in their personal capacities, x x x Notably, the acts complained of herein are personal to the Respondents, since they do not involve their performance of an official function. Surely, there is nothing official in the ad of depriving a public servant of his compensation, allowances and benefits .... "

It bears to stress that this Office is not a collecting agency. And to be sure, Mr. · Espaiiol has not pointed to any legal provision investing this Office with jurisdictional competence to pass upon his claim for damages and other pay items ·against individual respondents in their personal capacity. ·

As a rule, cases involving a demand or a claim for money are cognizable by either the Regional Trial Court or Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Court, the amount of the claim or demand being determinative of their respective jurisdictions.

But assuming for argument the authority of this Office to take cognizance of this demand for money, Mr. Espanol has, in our view of the case, no cause of action against either Ms. David or Sec. Sto. Tomas, let alone the two other individual respondents. The latter two had absolutely nothing to do with .Mr. Espafiol's travails.

One is said to have a cause of. action against another if the ·latter's wrongful act or omission violates the primary right of the former (Sec. 2, Rule 2, Rules of Court). Surely, Mr. Espanol's right of action and corollarily individual respondents' wrongful act and the consequent liability cannot be deduced from the bare fact that he failed to receive his salary, allowances and other benefits/amenities, such as a service car, a driver and a cellular phone, during the period material. We shall explain why.

As earlier recited, complainant himself requested to be placed in the Pool effective June 1, 2002. Sec. Sto. Tomas acceded to this request. The Secretary forthwith formalized - and Ms. David acknowledged on June 3, 2002 -the transfer under the following arrangements, among others, to wit: (a) the salary, benefits and. allowances of Mr. Espafiol for the first three (3) months salary shall, pursuant to Section III·(4) of the Guidelines for the Administration of the CES Pool, be shouldered by DOLE and by the Pool fund thereafter; and (b) the ·CSC and CESB shall exert effort to find a new placement for him within the six-month period of his stay in the Pool.

There can be no quibbling that DOLE faithfully complied· with its part of the arrangement. There is ·also no dispute that Mr. Espafiol did not return to and was not returned to DOLE six (6) months following his voluntary ·placement in the Pool. Be that as it may, DOLE's and/or its Secretary's disclaimer of liability appears to rest on solid legal ground. On the other hand, the Pool Fund, and with more reason Ms. David, cannot plausibly be made to answer for any and all ·claims of Mr. Espanol since he had never effectively placed himself under the Pool. As earlier stated, Mr. Espanol reported only to the CESS briefly on June 2, 2002. He did not thereafter report to CESB, let alone secure its approval of his detail to, or acceptance of other position, if any. In net effect, the inability, if it can be described as that, of Mr. Espanol to collect

SE M. ESPANOL, JR., -versus-TRICIA STO. TOMAS, ET AL. ___ ,_ .. , ,...~I .... ,...,

Page 4 of 7

. .

his salary and other benefits from October 2002 and beyond is clearly not attributable ·to the wrongful act of Sec. Sto. Tomas eta!., and/or DOLE. We need not belabor the reason why this conclusion applies with more vigor to the Pool, Ms. David and esc.

This brings us to the question of whether or not Mr. Espanol had, according to his account, been "constructively dismissed" and that individual respondents are responsible therefor.

Constructive dismissal, basically a labor law concept, exists when an employee is compelled to quit because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely (Gaco vs. NLRC, 230 SCRA 160), as when he is reassigned or transferred accompanied by a demotion in rank, or when he ends up doing menial job from a position of dignity, or diminution in pay and/or privileges (Ledesma & Co. vs. NLRC, 246 SCRA 47). Constructive dismissal also exists when an act of clear discrimination or disdain by an employer has become so unbearable to the employee leaving him with no option but to forego with his continued employment (Blue Diary Corp. vs. NLRc,· 314 SCRA 401). A scheme to lure an employee away from his permanent station, such as unconsented transfers without cause, or designed to indirectly terminate his service, e.g., demotion in terms of rank and pay, . is constructive removal from service and generally considered as violativ~ of provisions which ~feguard security of tenure of those who are in the Civil Service (Bentain vs. CA, 209 SCRA 644, citing other cases).

As may be noted from the foregoing holdings, constructive dismissal invariably entails unlawful personnel movement. Given this perspective, Mr. Espanol cannot validly claim he was the subject of constructive dismissal. Mr. Espanol's bemoans, in his original and amended complaints, that he was constructiveiy dismissed by respondents Sto. Tomas and David. Yet, he has not pointed to specific overt acts done by any of the two whence constructive dismissal may categorically be deduced. His being placed in the Pool cannot be plausibly treated as .constructive dismissal inasmuch as he himself asked for such placement. His being removed from DOLE's payroll starting October 2002 cannot also be considered as an outlawed subterfuge to constructively rid him from the public service. For as earlier stated, DOLE's obligation to pay his salary, allowances and other benefits ceased three months after his placement in the Pool effective June 2, 2002. Mr. Espanol was fully apprised of this fact.

On the .other hand, the CESS's refusal to pay from the Pool Fund Mr. Espanol's claim for salary and allowances and/or to remit the required contribution to GSIS and other agencies from June 2, 2002 and onwards can hardly constitute an actionable constructive dismissal imputable to Ms. David. For, ~o a redundant point, CESB, obligated itself to pay Mr. Espanol salary and allowances only during his detail to the Pool, an event which did not actually materialize since he never reported to the Pool.

I JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR., -versus-(~TRICIA.STO. TOMAS, ET Al.

Page 5 of 7

~ . . . • Upon the foregoing perspective, it behooves this Office to dismiss the instant

complaint. This is not to say that the claim under consideration or a component thereof is entirely devoid of basis, it being established that claimant rendered service under a color of title during the period covered by his claim. However, the factual and legal situation leaves no room for another kind of disposition.

Upon the foregoing disquisition, there appears to be no necessity of delving into the jurisdictional issue invoked by Ms. David, albeit the CSC is indeed an independent Constitutional Commission whose decision or ruling may only be challenged by certiorari before the proper court (Sec. 7, Art. IX (A). Suffice it to say in this regard that the question of whether or not this Office possesses competence to pass upon the validity of acts of the CESB Chairman is a novel issue and one where reasonable minds can honestly disagree, absent applicable jurisprudence.

In closing, we wish to make the following observations:

First, each case, each ruling, or each · situation must stand on its own facts; a tribunal should decide within the narrow confines of a particular case, refraining, as a general proposition, from resolving issues not tendered and adequately discussec;J or from m.aking an award, if proper, against .parties not included in the complaint or counterclaim.

Second, the tenurial security of CESOs appointed to rank, like Mr. Espanol, is limited to their rank, not to the position they were appointed to or occupying (Dimayuga vs. Benedicta, G.R. No. 144153, Jan. 16, 2002, citing Cuevas vs. Bacal, G.R. 139382, Dec. 6, 2000 and other cases). Accordingly, Mr. Espanol's lament about the appointment on July 14, 2.003 of Danilo Cruz as DOLE Undersecretary, the position allegedly held by the former, may, in the light of Cuevas, supra, be untenable.

Third, while "July 31/ 2002' appears in the detailing memorandum in question, there are reasons to believe that the same was officially released and made known to parties concerned very much later. The first that comes to mind is the fact that Mr. Espanol sought CESS's approval of his leave application on August 6, 2002. If he had in possession a copy of the detail memorandum, how explain the application? Secondly, Sec. Rufino, in his letter to Ms. David dated August 14, 2002, supra., advised the latter that Mr. Espanol is part of the Committee on Micro-Economic Affairs, PLOPA, the creation of which the President has approved. A copy of the detailing memorandum which should have, as a matter of simple courtesy, been appended to the advisory, if the same memorandum had been duly released, was not so appended and no explanation was given for the omission. And lastly, Mr. Espanol, when asked by Ms. David to show cause why he should not be dropped from the rolls, appeared not to have invoked the July 31, 2002 detail memorandum~ suggesting that he too was not aware at that time of the issuance thereof, if that be the case . .

Fourth, this Office is not, in the strict legal viewpoint, obligated to answer for Mr. Espafiol claim. If the same is to be considered, however, it is only for reason of

JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR., -versus-TRICIA STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

f"\0 rfiCC M~ n ? I "7nC.

Page 6 of 7

. ,. .....__ .· . ..,... .... •

equity and should be based on the quantum meruit principle. It should be underst;ood, however, that any award should only include basic compensation and such allowances and benefits provided by law and which the public official is accordingly entitled to as a matter of right.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint should be, as hereby it is, DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, 0 ~ _AUG 2004

12/vsa

Copy For:

Yngson & Associates Unit 7-B ·strata 2000 Bldg. tJit) .Q. ·'>) Emerald Avenue, Pasig City

Atty. Myrna Macatangay OIC, Office for Legal Affairst Civil Service Commission I Quezon City

Atty. Arturo Lachica Deputy Executive Director career Executive Service Board f · Quezon City

Atty. Maria Elenita Dungo-Nieto Officer-in-Charge Legal Service () Dept. of Labor & Employment I Manila

F

JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR., -versus-~ATRICIA STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

By authority of the President:

Page 7 of 7

'I

JOSE M. ESPANOL, JR., · Complainant,

-versus-

PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, ET AL., Respondents,

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - X

OP CASE No. 03-L-706

R~~Q.bU!!ON

This resolves the motion of lose M. Espaiiol, Jr. for reconsideration of the Decision of this Office dated 04 August 2004 dismissing his complaint against Sec. Patricia Sto. Tomas and two (2) other Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) officials, namely Human Resource ar)d Service Director Amuerfina Reyes and Administrative Director Violeta Munoz, Civil Service Commission (CSC) Chairman Karina C. David, in her capacity as Administrator of the career Executive Service (CES) Resource Pool (''CESO Pool" or "Pool", for brevity), and DOLE and CSC, as alternative respondents, arising from the alleged omission of individual respondents to pay complainant his salaries and allowances, and for depriving him of certain benefits and employment amenities.

The factual antecedents in brief:

Then DOLE Undersecretary Jose Espaiiol, CESO I, was, upon his own request which Sec. Sto. Tomas approved, placed in the CES Pool effective May 31, 2002 under the following arrangements prescribed by the Guidelines for the Administration of the CES Pool: DOLE shall pay his first 3 months salary/allowances; thereafter, the Pool Fund until an appropriate match is found.

In view of the July 2002 barangay elections and the resulting ban on certain personnel movement, Sec. Sto. Tomas sought and later secured COMELEC's approval of Mr. Espaiiol's detail aforestated.

Even before Mr. Espafiol could report to the Pool, then Presidential Liaison Officer for Political Affairs (PLOPA) Jose Rufino already requested Sec. Sto. Tomas to allow Mr. Espafiol 's detail to OPLOPA. A similar request was later made

I •

I I

to Ms. Karina David, as CES Board (CESBfchairman, who responded that Mr. Espanol proposed detail from the CES Pool to OPLOPA would require her approval and would result,_ if e~ected, to_ ~J~ lo~~- o~. his CE~ r~n.k _a~9 PC??~t.i~~ ~~

---·-ooLE~-- - -- - -· ·· · ·

All told, Mr. Espanol never reported to the PooL Albeit Mr. Espanol filed and secured approval of separate leaves of absence covering the month of July 2002 and several days of August 2002 and notwithstanding Sec. Rufino's request for Mr. Espanol's detail to OPLOPA effective August 1, 2002, Ms. David would later drop Mr. Espanol from the rolls for being AWOL. Unknown, however, at that time to Ms. David, DOLE and most likely Mr. Espanol was the issuance of a Presidential Memorandum under date July 31, 2002, detailing "Mr. Espanol to OP/ OPLOPA. While the record is inconclusive, Ms. David had insisted that the detailing memo was ante-dated.

Starting October 2002, DOLE stopped paying Mr. Espanol 's salary/allowances and discontinue

decision - gsis.gov.ph · constantino-david (david), then chairperson of the civil service ... of...

Documents