This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-12 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| The main issue raised by Tolentino et al. in their petition before the trial court was the validity of JC No. 99-3 insofar as it provided for the deduction of the government's share on GSIS contributions from the 20% premium given to contractual employees, in lieu of leave benefits. Such issue, pertaining as it does to the coverage, collection and payment of GSIS contributions, is a dispute over which the GSIS exercises exclusive and original jurisdiction. This jurisdiction of the GSIS was also recognized by this Court in Government Service Insurance System v. Commission on Audit.[52] It was therefore error for the trial court, though it is a court of general jurisdiction,[53] to assume jurisdiction over the same. | |||||
|
2015-08-12 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Thus, considering (1) the long period of time that the issue has been pending, (2) the remaining issue left to be resolved is a purely legal question,[58] (3) the concerned parties have extensively discussed the merits of the case in their respective pleadings and did not confine their arguments to the issue of jurisdiction,[59] and finally, (4) no useful purpose would be served if we remand the matter to the board only for its decision to be elevated to the Court of Appeals and subsequently to this Court,[60] we deem it sound and more in the interest of justice to resolve the merits of the controversy. | |||||
|
2007-01-31 |
PUNO, CJ. |
||||
| A review of the relevant provisions of P.D. 957 reveals that while the law penalizes the selling of subdivision lots and condominium units without prior issuance of a Certificate of Registration and License to Sell by the HLURB, it does not provide that the absence thereof will automatically render a contract, otherwise validly entered, void. The penalty imposed by the decree is the general penalty provided for the violation of any of its provisions.[23] It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that the clear language of the law shall prevail.[24] This principle particularly enjoins strict compliance with provisions of law which are penal in nature, or when a penalty is provided for the violation thereof. With regard to P.D. 957, nothing therein provides for the nullification of a contract to sell in the event that the seller, at the time the contract was entered into, did not possess a certificate of registration and license to sell.[25] Absent any specific sanction pertaining to the violation of the questioned provisions (Secs. 4 and 5), the general penalties provided in the law shall be applied. The general penalties for the violation of any provisions in P.D. 957 are provided for in Sections 38 and 39. As can clearly be seen in the aforequoted provisions, the same do not include the nullification of contracts that are otherwise validly entered. | |||||
|
2006-01-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| x x x we are of the opinion that the exemption should be liberally construed in favor of the pensioner. Pension in this case is a bounty flowing from the graciousness of the Government intended to reward past services and, at the same time, to provide the pensioner with the means with which to support himself and his family. Unless otherwise clearly provided, the pension should inure wholly to the benefit of the pensioner x x x. The above ruling was reiterated in Tantuico, Jr. v. Domingo, [17] and Government Service Insurance System v. Commission on Audit, [18] where the Court held that benefits under retirement laws cannot be withheld regardless of the employee's monetary liability to the government. Retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the retiree because the intention is to provide for the retiree's sustenance and comfort when he is no longer capable of earning his livelihood. [19] | |||||