Hilarion Beronilla vs GSIS, its BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et.

a;
GR No. L-21723, November 26, 1970
FACTS:
- This case is a special civil action of prohibition seeking to declare Resolution No.
1497 of the Board of Trustees of GSIS as null and void. Said resolution considers Mr.
Beronilla, herein petitioner, as having been compulsorily retired from service as
Auditor of the Philippine National Bank. Petitioner had been a member of the GSIS
for years. He was also assigned to other positions in the government.
- In all his records, including the Members Service Record which he submitted to
the GSIS, the petitioner uniformly indicated that his date of birth was January 14,
1898. On September 29, 1959, the petitioner requested the Commissioner of Civil
Service, thru the Auditor General, that his date of birth be changed to January 14,
1900, because according to him, it was only in the year 1955 that he knew about
his real birth date. Said request was sent by the Civil Service to the GSIS.
- The Legal Counsel of GSIS denied said request. However, the petitioner tried to
gather evidences to prove his real birthdate, and once again, showed them to the
Legal Counsel of GSIS, but was still denied.
- The petitioner appealed to the General Manager of the GSIS, Mr. Andal. The latter
placed OK at the foot of the request, thereby indicating the approval of the
request for change of birthdate. Because of such approval, notice of adjustments
were sent to the Civil Service Commission. The adjustment included the issuance of
a new life policy no. of the petitioner, therefore extending it.
- For 3 years, the petitioner enjoyed the approval given by Mr. Andal. However, Mr.
Mathay, the Auditor of the Central Bank advised the PNB about the service of the
petitioner, who was continuously paid even after reaching the age of 65, which is
the compulsory retirement age from the government service. This advice was sent
to the Board of Trustees of GSIS. Upon knowing which, the Board of Trustees of GSIS
adopted the disputed resolution of the Legal Counsel of GSIS, thereby denying the
request for change of birthdate of the petitioner.
ISSUE:
- Whether the GSIS Board of Trustees acted within its powers when it reversed
the approval of General Manager Andal of petitioners request for change of
date of birth.
HELD:
- The Supreme Court decided to uphold the superior authority of the Board
over the General Manager, hence, the petition is denied.
- The Board of Trustees directly manages GSIS and the General Manager is only
the chief executive officer of the Board, therefore, the approvals of the
General Manager is subject to the concurrence of the Members of the Board
of Trustees.

Although there were substantial changes made because of the approval

made by Mr. Andal, these actions cannot make the GSIS guilty for laches or
estoppel since as a general rule, actuations by the government do not create
laches or estoppel. Further, it was only thru Mr. Mathays letter that the Board
knew about Mr. Andals action.
For the sake of inequity, the Board was convinced that the originally recorded
date of birth should not be disturbed, since said recorded date of birth was
used uniformly by the petitioner decades back in all his official records.
With regards to the petitioners contention that he was denied due process as
when he was not notified about Mr. Mathays letter, the court ruled that
procedures established by GSIS does not require notice and hearing.
Finally, with regards to petitioners argument that the Boards action impaired
his constitutional right of the obligations of his contract, the court ruled that
retirement of government employees is imposed by law and is not a result of
any contractual stipulations.
Petition in this case is DISMISSED.