Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MILAGROS O. MONTESCLAROS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 163583 2008-08-20	BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO v. JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
[52] Government Service Insurance System v. Montesclaros, G.R. No. 146494, July 14, 2004, 434 SCRA 441, 451-452.
	GR No. 156052 2008-02-13	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY v. JOSE L. ATIENZA CORONA, J.
This issue should not detain us for long. An ordinance based on reasonable classification does not violate the constitutional guaranty of the equal protection of the law.[142] The requirements for a valid and reasonable classification are: (1) it must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.[143]
	GR NO. 161357 2005-11-30	ELENA P. DYCAICO v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM CALLEJO, SR., J.
In an analogous case, Government Service Insurance System v. Montesclaros,[8] the Court invalidated the proviso in Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1146[9] which stated that "the dependent spouse shall not be entitled to said pension if his marriage with the pensioner is contracted within three years before the pensioner qualified for the pension." In the said case, the Court characterized retirement benefits as property interest of the pensioner as well as his or her surviving spouse. The proviso, which denied a dependent spouse's claim for survivorship pension if the dependent spouse contracted marriage to the pensioner within the three-year prohibited period, was declared offensive to the due process clause. There was outright confiscation of benefits due the surviving spouse without giving him or her an opportunity to be heard. The proviso was also held to infringe the equal protection clause as it discriminated against dependent spouses who contracted their respective marriages to pensioners within three years before they qualified for their pension.
	GR No. 148208 2004-12-15	CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS PUNO, J.
Thus, even if petitioner had not alleged "a comparable change in the factual milieu as regards the compensation, position classification and qualification standards of the employees of the BSP (whether of the executive level or of the rank-and-file) since the enactment of the new Central Bank Act" is of no moment. In GSIS v. Montesclaros,[57] this Court resolved the issue of constitutionality notwithstanding that claimant had manifested that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case, and even when the constitutionality of the said provision was not squarely raised as an issue, because the issue involved not only the claimant but also others similarly situated and whose claims GSIS would also deny based on the challenged proviso. The Court held that social justice and public interest demanded the resolution of the constitutionality of the proviso. And so it is with the challenged proviso in the case at bar.
	GR No. 148208 2004-12-15	CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS PUNO, J.
In the case at bar, it is precisely the fact that as regards the exemption from the SSL, there are no characteristics peculiar only to the seven GFIs or their rank-and-file so as to justify the exemption which BSP rank-and-file employees were denied (not to mention the anomaly of the SEC getting one). The distinction made by the law is not only superficial,[56] but also arbitrary. It is not based on substantial distinctions that make real differences between the BSP rank-and-file and the seven other GFIs.