Agorilla, Francis Arvy Go.

Cena v. GSIS
Facts: Gaudencio Cena first entered government service on November 16 1978 as a
Legal Officer for seven years until his transfer on November 16, 1986 to the Office
of the Congressman of the First District of Caloocan City where he worked for only
three (3) months, or until February 15, 1987, as Supervising Staff Officer. On July 16,
1987, he was appointed as Registrar of Deeds of Malabon, the position he held at
the time he reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years on January 22,
1991. By then, he would have rendered a total government service of 11 years, 9
months and 6 days. Before reaching his 65th birthday, he requested the Secretary
of Justice, that he be allowed to extend his service to complete the 15-year service
requirement to enable him to retire with full benefits of old-age pension under
Section 11, par. (b) of P.D. 1146. Cenas request was denied, declaring that Mr. Cena
shall be considered retired from the service on January 22, 1991, the date when he
shall reach the compulsory retirement age of sixty-five (65) years. His motion for
reconsideration was granted and he was allowed a one-year extension of his
service. His second motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition.
Issue: May a government employee who has reached the compulsory retirement
age of 65 years, but who has rendered 11 years, 9 months and 6 days of
government service, be allowed to continue in the service to complete the 15-year
service requirement to enable him to retire with the benefits of an old-age pension
under the GSIS?
Held: Yes. (Petition granted).
The administrative code cannot be interpreted to authorize the Civil Service
Commission to limit to only one (1) year the extension of service of an employee
who has reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 without having completed 15
years of service, when said limitation has no relation to or connection with the
provision of the law supposed to be carried into effect. As a law of general
application, the Administrative Code of 1987 cannot authorize the modification of an
express provision of a special law (Revised Government Service Insurance of 1977).
Otherwise, the intent and purpose of the provisions on retirement and pension of
the Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977 (P.D. 1146) would be
rendered nugatory and meaningless.
The GSIS should be liberally interpreted, a statute creating a pension or establishing
retirement plan should be liberally construed and administered in favor of the
persons intended to be benefited thereby. The liberal approach aims to achieve the
humanitarian purposes of the law in order that the efficiency, security and wellbeing of government employees may be enhanced.
The completion of the 15-year service requirement under Section 11 par. (b)
partakes the nature of a privilege given to an employee who has reached the
compulsory retirement age of 65 years, but has less than 15 years of service. If said
employee opted to avail of said privilege, he is entitled to the benefits of the old-

age pension. On the other hand, if the said employee opted to retire upon reaching
the compulsory retirement age of 65 years although he has less than 15 years of
service, he is entitled to the benefits provided for under Section 12 of P.D. 1146, i.e.
a cash equivalent to 100% of his average monthly compensation for every year of
service.
GSIS v. CA
Facts: Private respondent is the widow of SPO2 Florencio Alegre. The deceased was
driving his tricycle and ferrying passengers within the vicinity of Imelda Commercial
Complex when SPO4 Alejandro Tenorio, Jr., Team/Desk Officer of the Police
Assistance Center located at said complex, confronted him regarding his tour of
duty. SPO2 Alegre allegedly snubbed SPO4 Tenorio and even directed curse words
upon the latter. A verbal tussle then ensued between the two which led to the fatal
shooting of the deceased police officer. On account of her husbands death, private
respondent seasonably filed a claim for death benefits with GSIS pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 626. In its the GSIS, denied the claim on the ground that at
the time of SPO2 Alegres death, he was performing a personal activity which was
not work-connected. Subsequent appeal to the Commission ECC proved futile as
said body merely affirmed the ruling of the GSIS. The CA ruled in favor of private
respondent; holding that SPO2 Alegres death was work-connected and, therefore,
compensable.
Issue: Whether the death of SPO2 Alegre is compensable pursuant to the applicable
laws and regulations.
Held: No.
Under the pertinent guidelines of the ECC on compensability, it is provided that for
the injury and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the injury must
be the result of an employment accident satisfying all of the following conditions:
(1) The employee must have been injured at the place where his work requires
him to be;
(2) The employee must have been performing his official functions; and
(3) If the injury is sustained elsewhere, the employee must have been executing
an order for the employer.
The court held that policemen should be treated in the same manner as soldiers.
The employee must have been executing an order for the employer. It is not difficult
to understand then why SPO2 Alegres widow should be denied the claims otherwise
due her. Obviously, the matter SPO2 Alegre was attending to at the time he met his
death, that of ferrying passengers for a fee, was intrinsically private and unofficial in
nature proceeding as it did from no particular directive or permission of his superior
officer. there is no justification for holding that SPO2 Alegre met the requisites set
forth in the ECC guidelines. That he may be called upon at any time to render police
work as he is considered to be on a round-the-clock duty and was not on an
approved vacation leave will not change the conclusion arrived at considering that
he was not placed in a situation where he was required to exercise his authority and

duty as a policeman. In fact, he was refusing to render one pointing out that he
already complied with the duty detail. At any rate, the 24-hour duty doctrine, as
applied to policemen and soldiers, serves more as an after-the-fact validation of
their acts to place them within the scope of the guidelines rather than a blanket
license to benefit them in all situations that may give rise to their deaths. In other
words, the 24-hour duty doctrine should not be sweepingly applied to all acts and
circumstances causing the death of a police officer but only to those which,
although not on official line of duty, are nonetheless basically police service in
character.