Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARINO E. RUBIA v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 165585 2013-11-20	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Passing on the issue of the exemption from execution of GSIS funds, the CA, citing Rubia v. GSIS[75] (Rubia), held that the exemption provided for by RA 8291 is not absolute since it only pertains to the social security benefits of its members; thus, funds used by the GSIS for business investments and commercial ventures, as in this case, may be attached and garnished.[76]
	GR No. 157644 2010-11-17	SPS. ERNESTO v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
As a rule, judgments are sufficiently served when they are delivered personally, or through registered mail to the counsel of record, or by leaving them in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge thereof. After service, a judgment or order which is not appealed nor made subject of a motion for reconsideration within the prescribed 15-day period attains finality.[42]
	GR No. 175393 2009-12-18	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. RTC OF PASIG CITY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Lastly, petitioner asks that this Court revisit the ruling in Rubia v. GSIS, [43] which held that the GSIS exemption from execution is not absolute. Petitioner makes the following averments regarding this issue: Rubia distinguishes between GSIS funds to pay for benefits and funds intended for investments. There is no such distinction. All funds including those invested and the income derived from them are funds used to pay benefits. GSIS never views its income from investments as "profits". All income goes to benefit payments, if not current, then for the future when the billions now paid annually will multiply several times because most of the 1,200,000 current members and the employees succeeding them will have retired.
	GR NO. 147192 2006-06-27	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CITY ASSESSOR OF ILOILO CITY CORONA, J.
Again, in the 2004 case of Rubia v. Government Service Insurance System,[17] the Court declared that any interpretation that gave Section 39 an expansive construction to exempt all GSIS assets and properties from legal processes was unwarranted. These processes included the levy and garnishment of its assets for taxes or claims enforced against it. The Court there ruled that the exemption under Section 39 of the GSIS Charter should be read consistently with its avowed purpose the maintenance of its actuarial solvency to finance the retirement, disability and life insurance benefits of its members. The Court meant that the tax-exempt properties and assets of GSIS referred to those that remained at its disposal and use, either for investment or for income-generating purposes. Properties whose actual and beneficial use had been transferred to private taxable persons, for consideration or otherwise, were excluded and were thus taxable.
	GR NO. 142272 2006-05-02	ABOITIZ INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Moreover, the certificate of service of the process server of the court a quo is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out therein.[25] The records show that despite being allowed to present Lita Apostol as witness to prove that she was its customer service representative and not its documentary clerk, petitioner AIFI failed to do so. This omission rendered the certification of the process server of the court a quo conclusive on petitioner AIFI.